karen52 --
As you probably know, the issue of the costs vs. the benefits to New
York City and the U.S. related to being the headquarters of the United
Nations has long been controversial, and it has flared up again in the
post-9/11 environment.
The most recent comprehensive treatment of the issue is contained in a
December 2001 report of the Association of the Bar of the City of New
York ("ABCNY Report"). Here is a link to that report:
Association of the City of the Bar of the City of New York: New York
City and the United Nations: Towards a Renewed Relationship
http://www.abcny.org/currentarticle/Towards%20a%20Renewed%20Relationship.html
The ANCNY in its 2001 report advocates the retention of the UN
headquarters in New York, and its conclusion is that the benefits of
the U.N.'s presence in New York far outweigh its costs. However, this
bar association has its very prestigious reputation to maintain, and
it can be presumed to be fair and thorough in its presentation of the
available facts.
With regard to the costs borne by New York City and the federal
government in connection with hosting the U.N., the Report first cites
the original one-time costs to New York City (and the federal
government) in 1947-48. These included the following:
1. New York City contributed supplemental publicly owned land on the
East River and $143 million (in year 2000 dollars) for alterations to
the immediate area (the site itself was contributed by John D.
Rockefeller).
2. An interest-free loan of $465 million (in year 2000 dollars) was
made by the federal government for the construction and furnishing of
the headquarters building. (Source: ABCNY Report at page 1)
With regard to the specific ongoing costs borne by New York City
attributable to providing a home for the UN and its diplomats, the
ABCNY Report used data from a 1989 study, which is the last data on
the subject that was compiled and accepted by the City as accurate.
(The Report, in Section IV, urges the current New York City
administration to "probe deeper" with "hard-headed economic analysis"
and to "utilize [its] confidential information" in coming up with
updated information.)
Here is the relevant language from the ABCNY Report:
"The 1989 study estimated the costs to the City for education of the
children of UN staff and diplomats, at $3,900,000, and the revenues
lost to the City, primarily as a result of real estate property tax
exemptions and also uncollected parking and towing fines, at
$21,957,000, for a total of lost expenditures and lost revenues of
$26,502,000." [footnotes omitted]
(Source: ABCNY Study, Section I.A.)
These data are not up-to-date, of course, and they change from year to
year, but they provide a good general idea of the magnitude of New
York City's ongoing "contribution" to the U.N. According to the ABCNY
Report, other costs, such as "routine" police protection of the area
have never been reliably estimated ("special" protection is supposedly
reimbursed by the U.N.). (Source: ABCNY Report, Section I.A.)
Also, there is a recurring problem of traffic congestion caused by
U.N.-related activity (see ABYNY Report, Section II.B.) These traffic
jams presumably is costly in terms of time lost, but apparently there
has been no official attempt to quantify this cost.
Some interesting and more current data is available on one aspect of
the issue -- parking fines unpaid by U.N. diplomats. This became a
cause celebre again in 1997 when then-Mayor Giuliani vented his
frustration about the problem and suggested that the U.N. might
consider leaving town if its employees were unwilling to pay up what
were then estimated to be $6 million in unpaid fines from 1996 alone.
Here is a link to a contemporaneous CNN.com article that will give you
the flavor of the controversy:
CNN.com: U.N. Controversy: World peace? Nope. Parking
Tickethttp://www.cnn.com/US/9704/11/un.bye.bye/
(I should note, as the CNN article discloses, that the U.N.s
headquarters property was worth about $720 million (undeveloped) in
1997, but the federal government -- not New York City -- would have
the right to dispose of the property in the event the U.N. left town.)
Finally, a 2001 news story from Africa Online indicates that the
parking problem had not been resolved. It publishes a New York City
Department of Finance list of the top-25 scofflaws that details unpaid
parking fines of about $6.5 million still due from African nations
alone. Here is a link to that story:
Africa Online: African Diplomats Owe $6.5 Million in Unpaid Parking
Tickets
http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,3720.jsp
Additional Site:
Here is a link to the text of the agreement between the U.S. and the
United Nations relating to the location of U.N. headquarters:
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School: Headquarters of the United
Nations
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad036.htm
Search Strategy:
I used various Google searches on a trial-and-error basis. The search
that revealed the comprehensive 2001 ABCNY Report used the following
search terms:
"united nations" "police protection" "parking tickets"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=+%22united+nations%22+%22police+protection%22+%22parking+tickets%22
The specific information on the ongoing parking ticket controversy was
found using the following search terms:
"united nations" "parking tickets"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=+%22united+nations%22+%22parking+tickets%22&btnG=Google+Search
This is an interesting and controversial subject. I have tried to
distill for you the best information available on your specific
question, and I am confident that I have succeeded. If any of the
above is unclear, please ask for clarification before rating this
answer.
markj-ga |
