An Expansion of the UN in New York?
Mayor Michael Bloomberg may get one more try at convincing state lawmakers in Albany to approve a proposal to expand the United Nations headquarters in Midtown Manhattan, according to an Associated Press report that can be found at AM New York/Newsday.
New York State must approve the proposal for the UN to build on park land that is next to the headquarters. According to the AP story, "several state senators blocked the bill in 2004 because of their political opposition to the United Nations."
Bloomberg countered those attacks on the bill on his weekly radio show last Friday.
"They have stirred up people and said, 'Oh the UN is anti-Zionist, it's anti-this, it's anti-Semitic.' I don't know whether that's true, and it has nothing to do with this."
Will there be a UN building standing beside this one?
Bloomberg also insisted that the resistance has stemmed from real estate developers who would rather use the land or that a new building would block the views from other buildings.
Michael Long, the chairman of the New York State Conservative Party, stated that the campaign against the expansion of the UN is the result of the UN's relationship with the country.
Brooklyn Republican State Senator Martin Golden took the reasoning a step further and cited two reasons why the proposal was blocked.
As the AP report states:
"In 2004, he said the UN's oil-for-food scandal and refusal to join the United States in fighting the Iraq war were reasons why the city and state should want nothing to do with the UN."
The problem with that reasoning is that many in New York City are against the Iraq war. Also, if one wants to get rid of the UN for opposing the Iraq war, then relations with all the other countries and groups that opposed the war (then or now) would have to go as well.
Bloomberg has stated that he will try to convince the Legislature to approve the use of the land for the expansion. Bloomberg asserts that the expansion will benefit the city since it will keep the UN in the city, which generates economic activity. Additionally, the expansion would free two city-owned buildings that are currently used by the UN.
If Bloomberg wants to obtain the permission for the expansion, then he should explain in more detail how the city would benefit. The economic activity generated in the city by the UN should be explained as well as the plans the city would have for the two buildings that the UN would vacate when the expansion is complete. The city could use such evidence to prove that the expansion is better for the city than any other plans that might be brought forth. The city is the cash cow of the state and any additional benefit should be sought by the state, as it would be ripe for the taking.
On the other hand, the state should consider the merits and demerits of the proposal based on things other than opposition to the Iraq war, especially because the war has had less support since 2004.
Of course, all this is assuming that the proposal makes it past any state senators seeking to block the bill. It should at least see the light of day.
New York State must approve the proposal for the UN to build on park land that is next to the headquarters. According to the AP story, "several state senators blocked the bill in 2004 because of their political opposition to the United Nations."
Bloomberg countered those attacks on the bill on his weekly radio show last Friday.
"They have stirred up people and said, 'Oh the UN is anti-Zionist, it's anti-this, it's anti-Semitic.' I don't know whether that's true, and it has nothing to do with this."
Will there be a UN building standing beside this one?
Bloomberg also insisted that the resistance has stemmed from real estate developers who would rather use the land or that a new building would block the views from other buildings.
Michael Long, the chairman of the New York State Conservative Party, stated that the campaign against the expansion of the UN is the result of the UN's relationship with the country.
Brooklyn Republican State Senator Martin Golden took the reasoning a step further and cited two reasons why the proposal was blocked.
As the AP report states:
"In 2004, he said the UN's oil-for-food scandal and refusal to join the United States in fighting the Iraq war were reasons why the city and state should want nothing to do with the UN."
The problem with that reasoning is that many in New York City are against the Iraq war. Also, if one wants to get rid of the UN for opposing the Iraq war, then relations with all the other countries and groups that opposed the war (then or now) would have to go as well.
Bloomberg has stated that he will try to convince the Legislature to approve the use of the land for the expansion. Bloomberg asserts that the expansion will benefit the city since it will keep the UN in the city, which generates economic activity. Additionally, the expansion would free two city-owned buildings that are currently used by the UN.
If Bloomberg wants to obtain the permission for the expansion, then he should explain in more detail how the city would benefit. The economic activity generated in the city by the UN should be explained as well as the plans the city would have for the two buildings that the UN would vacate when the expansion is complete. The city could use such evidence to prove that the expansion is better for the city than any other plans that might be brought forth. The city is the cash cow of the state and any additional benefit should be sought by the state, as it would be ripe for the taking.
On the other hand, the state should consider the merits and demerits of the proposal based on things other than opposition to the Iraq war, especially because the war has had less support since 2004.
Of course, all this is assuming that the proposal makes it past any state senators seeking to block the bill. It should at least see the light of day.
posted by Will at 2:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home