U.N. Seeks Temporary Site The organization must find space while its 1952 headquarters undergoes $1.2 billion in repairs. By Maggie Farley April 4, 2005 Los Angeles Times Original Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-unhome4apr04,1,2708002.story NEW YORK — Wanted: A site for struggling world body; stable foundation and long-term views a must. Midtown Manhattan location desired, but willing to entertain options. The United Nations is seeking temporary quarters while it refurbishes its 52-year-old asbestos-ridden building on the East River, starting in 2007. But New York legislators, fed up with the organization's series of scandals, perceived anti-Americanism and alleged anti-Semitism, are denying it the adjacent land and funding it wants. So in two years, the whole U.N. will have to move somewhere else for a while. Local politicians have suggested that the U.N. relocate to Geneva, Germany or Africa. But U.N. officials are hoping for something a little closer to home — ideally in Midtown Manhattan — but they are willing to be creative. Sites across the East River in Queens, in Brooklyn's Navy Yard, or even the largely unused Governor's Island near the Statue of Liberty are being considered. We haven't ruled out anything yet, the U.N.'s management chief, Catherine Bertini, said Saturday. The No. 1 priority is that the site be available soon. The original Capital Master Plan called for the U.N. to build a 35-story tower as swing space on a lot next door that is used as a playground and dog run. During the headquarters' renovation, some of the organization's 5,500 employees would have moved out a few floors at a time into the swing building. At the end of the project, the dozens of U.N. agencies and offices sprinkled around the Turtle Bay neighborhood would be consolidated in the new tower. But opposition mostly from Republican members of the New York Legislature — as well as from dog walkers and field hockey players who use the pocket of public space — has delayed plans so long that the park is no longer a swing-site option. Others worry that the proposed building, part of which would sit atop the Queens-Midtown tunnel, could be a double target for terrorists. Bertini said that the U.N. had designed a riverside esplanade to compensate for the lost public space, and that the Department of Homeland Security had already studied the security issues. But it's already too late to use the space as a temporary home. Even if we got permission today, the building won't be ready until 2010, she said. So U.N. officials have engaged a real estate agent to show them temporary sites all over town — and even outside it — where they can squat until the 6-year renovation is done. A key consideration is a convenient commute for the 5,500 employees, 1,200 related staff and thousands of diplomats who converge daily on the headquarters. The U.N. will also need a temporary home for its General Assembly, which attracts leaders from its 191 member nations for the annual September opening. Bertini said she did not want to be specific about areas under consideration for fear of driving up prices in New York's already bubbling real estate market. The U.N. building, designed by 11 international architects on a site provided by the Rockefeller family, has had only one major overhaul since it was completed in 1952. Although the interior has a charming 1950s feel, the asbestos ceiling tiles are a hazard, the wiring is antiquated and dangerous, and there is no fire sprinkler system, said Joe Clarkson, the U.N. official in charge of the project. Staying and paying escalating maintenance bills would cost as much in 25 years as a total renovation, U.N. officials calculate. Washington and New York have made clear that they want the U.N. to stay. Not only is it a great place for the United States to gather intelligence, but the U.N. brings 800,000 tourists and contributes more than $2.5 billion to the local economy each year, according to the New York mayor's office. The U.S. government has offered a $1.2-billion loan for the entire amount at 5.54% interest over 30 years. The U.N. has until Sept. 30 to accept, and probably will make a decision next month. The State Department will lean on New York lawmakers to let the deal go through, said U.S. diplomat Howard Stoffer last month at the U.N. But last week, congressional critics threw another wrench in the works: The House International Relations Committee announced that it would subject the rebuilding plans to the same scrutiny it is giving the oil for food program for Iraq that is the subject of five congressional investigations. Committee member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican congresswoman from Florida, said last week that Congress should use financial leverage to force U.N. reforms. Given the wholesale lack of institutional transparency and accountability at the United Nations, it is imperative that we closely examine the $1.2 billion, she said in a news release. The U.S. taxpayer must not continue to be bled white by an unaccountable U.N. bureaucracy. Local developers, including Donald Trump, agree that the U.N. is being overcharged, and scoffed at the estimated $1.2- billion price tag. Trump has said that he could do it for a quarter of the price. U.N. officials say that the General Accounting Office has signed off on their accounting methodology, and that with all the security considerations, they can't afford for anything to go wrong. As for Trump's offer? All those who would like him to do it, please raise your hands, Bertini joked. It would probably have his name on top.