Crumbling U.N. Seeks $1 Billion for Renovation - Page 3

Shi Huangdi · July 7, 2003, 12:24

I'd be just as happy to see the UN out of our country.

MichaeltheGreat · July 7, 2003, 12:33

Yes, they do have to meet building codes of the local government jurisdiction. The problem is that without consent, the local jurisdictions have no enforcement power against the owners. Against the contractors, however, is a different story, and the contractor is the entity that normally pulls the permits.

That is, unless they (a) have enough space around the building to contain any effect of it's collapse; (b) have their own fire protection and sewer and utility services; (c) have entirely self-contained traffic; (d) have no off-site waste storage; (e) I'm sure you get the picture by now.

One billion to renovate existing occupied structures of that size to modern standards and code compliance isn't outrageous - that's one reason a lot of historical structures are demolished and replaced, rather than renovated. Working around an existing structure is much more expensive than new construction, particularly if you have to stage the work around occupied areas and maintain live utilities to those live areas.

Az · July 7, 2003, 12:36

So, let's destroy it!

mrboo123 · July 7, 2003, 13:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
I would support moving the UN HQ to Vienna or Geneva.(..)

Why not Toronto? Vancouver? London?

Sprayber · July 7, 2003, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Under what code? The UN is not US territory (it's not anyone's territory) so they do not haver to legaly met the building codes of any specific member states. And since the UN and its members have porbalby been to cheap to spend money to upgrade over time, i can imagine how it has deteriorated so bady.

Remind me why we want something that doesn't have to live up to basic building codes in the middle of one our greatest cities? It seems that they present a hazard to public safety.

Sprayber · July 7, 2003, 13:18

What we need to do is to give them an island somewhere off to themselves. That way in the future when their buildings get into a state of disrepair no one will get hurt.

Chris 62 · July 7, 2003, 13:21

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

Maybe they had to cut back on maintenance for the time period that America did not pay it's membership fees?

Maybe you would like to explain Roland, why the US "Membership fees" amount to 22% of the UN TOTAL.

Perhaps if deadbeats in Europe started carrying the load in this world, the USA wouldn't have to handle EVERYTHING.

Europe couldn't even handle a simple matter like Bosnia, and YOu want to run the UN????

GePap · July 7, 2003, 13:22

I thought the idea of making Governors island the new site for a new UN headquarters was ebing floated about: now that the Coast guard moved out that would give the Island some use, and that land on the east side could be opened up. It might also make security much easier.

GePap · July 7, 2003, 13:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Maybe you would like to explain Roland, why the US "Membership fees" amount to 22% of the UN TOTAL.

Perhaps if deadbeats in Europe started carrying the load in this world, the USA wouldn't have to handle EVERYTHING.

Europe couldn't even handle a simple matter like Bosnia, and YOu want to run the UN????

Ahem, but dues are a matter of your general share of the world economy (last time I heard), and if so, japan overpays since they pay 19.5% of total dues. Also,, I am sure if you added up all 12 EU members, that they combined pay more than the US as far as total UN dues are concerned.

Chris 62 · July 7, 2003, 13:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Vilnius is hardly a worthy city, especially due to its support for an ILLEGAL war that was HIGHLY opposed by the members of the UN and the world in general

Still living in that fantasy world, eh?

I suppose those 300,000 bodies don't matter, poor boys, but Saddam was in charge, wouldn't want to trample his leagal rights, now would we.

BTW, Your "heros" in the UN approved the war, as you seem to have selective memory.

Also, two nations of old Europe a load of out of touch Leftist protestor aern't "the world" no matter how much you want them to be.

Chris 62 · July 7, 2003, 13:28

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Ahem, but dues are a matter of your general share of the world economy (last time I heard), and if so, japan overpays since they pay 19.5% of total dues. Also,, I am sure if you added up all 12 EU members, that they combined pay more than the US as far as total UN dues are concerned.

Another member of the UN support squad.

If you "add up".

HA HA HA HA HA

The EU AERN'T a country, no matter how much some people here claim so.

Where were they the last 50 years in payments?

Where are there troops to carry out UN mandates?

Where is their morality?

Don't bother answering, I already know what you will say, the same stuff you always do.

GePap · July 7, 2003, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Also, two nations of old Europe a load of out of touch Leftist protestor aern't "the world" no matter how much you want them to be.

And given the fact that the US has only 5% of the world's population, neither is US public opinion "the world". "The coolition of the willing has about 40 out of 180+ states in the world, with India and China, which accouint by themselves for over 1/3 of humanity NOT in it.

Oh, and the UN did NOT authorize the war: that is why pro-war folks are angry at France over Iraq, remember?

GePap · July 7, 2003, 13:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Another member of the UN support squad.

If you "add up".

HA HA HA HA HA

The EU AERN'T a country, no matter how much some people here claim so.

Where were they the last 50 years in payments?

Where are there troops to carry out UN mandates?

Where is their morality?

Don't bother answering, I already know what you will say, the same stuff you always do.

How could anyone answer such incoherent nonsense?

Chris 62 · July 7, 2003, 13:32

Wrong again, oh king of selective memory.

What were the two nations charged with governing Iraq?

Say it with me Gepap, USA and Britain.

That was the authorization, Annom knows it, you know it, or are we going to see hundreds of more idiotic posts about how "wrong" the 40 nations were to take out Hitler jr.

Chris 62 · July 7, 2003, 13:33

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

How could anyone answer such incoherent nonsense?

Amazing, that's what everyone says about the things you say.

GePap · July 7, 2003, 13:35

Damn boy, you sure are filling in for Fez nicely.

The UN authorized the occupation after the fact, not the war before the fact.

Oh, and Hitler Jr? Not even that original.

BUt I will stop feeding the troll now.

Chris 62 · July 7, 2003, 13:43

Just like your brain seems to have stopped getting oxygen I gather.

Your act is as inane as you are Gepap, it hasn't changed.

Didn't like it that someone disagrees with the UN, and it becomes "ramblings."

You may be a big hero here in the Bizarro world, but you of course realize that 70% of Americans laugh at the UN, and the people who slavishly support it, or are you too far gone for that?

Ming · July 7, 2003, 15:04

Would you two just chill...

The Mad Monk · July 7, 2003, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
I thought the idea of making Governors island the new site for a new UN headquarters was ebing floated about: now that the Coast guard moved out that would give the Island some use, and that land on the east side could be opened up. It might also make security much easier.

Couldn't we just give them an abandoned oil derreck somewhere in the North Sea to play on?

SpencerH · July 7, 2003, 15:56

I vote for Paris or Vienna, but anywhere outside of the USA is fine by me.

DinoDoc · July 7, 2003, 16:10

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
One billion to renovate existing occupied structures of that size to modern standards and code compliance isn't outrageous - that's one reason a lot of historical structures are demolished and replaced, rather than renovated.

Sounds like it would be cheaper to tear it down and start over.

Spiffor · July 7, 2003, 16:13

Simply a quick fact. I don't intend to use it to prove a point right now, but it could be useful in the future:

From Onu-admin.ch

The amount paid to the UN is a function of payment ability. Special treatment is given to developing countries with high population and low per capita income. The most important contributiors to UN's budget are (% in, 2002)

USA: 22 %
Japan: 19,669 %
Germany: 9,845 %
France: 6,516 %
United Kingdom: 5,579 %
Italy: 5,104 %
Canada: 2,579 %
Spain: 2,539 %
Brazil: 2,093 %
Republic of Korea: 1,866 %
Netherlands: 1,751 %
Australia: 1,640 %
China: 1,545 %
Switzerland: 1,274 %

GePap · July 7, 2003, 16:17

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sounds like it would be cheaper to tear it down and start over.

Well, the secreteriat building can come down with no problem: the building were they hold the meetings have some nice murals and other art, and the grouds are very nice, so They might be too much of a loss. But they could always move the whole thing to governors Island. The UN stays in NYC (were it should), but East side traffic concerns are eased, that land is opened up, and security can be simplified. Evryone wins (except the UN haters, but who needs them?)

yavoon · July 7, 2003, 16:21

maybe we could move the UN to nashville.

DinoDoc · July 7, 2003, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Evryone wins (except the UN haters, but who needs them?)

As long as it is written in somewhere that they have to display a reasonable amount of care for the buildings they use (Letting the building go to **** like they apparently have doesn't qualify), I'd be happy with that.

Az · July 7, 2003, 16:37

I've heard lots of good things about Gary, Indiana.

Spiffor · July 7, 2003, 16:38

There's a problem with destroying the building : all the people who work at the UN would need to be relocated for the time needed to build the new thing. In the end, a new building will be better, but the costs will be high in the meantime.

Wait, the European Parliament in Strasbourg will be available to lease in a few years

DinoDoc · July 7, 2003, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
There's a problem with destroying the building : all the people who work at the UN would need to be relocated for the time needed to build the new thing.

Let them eat cake.

Spiffor · July 7, 2003, 16:47

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Let them eat cake.

What has LTEC! to do with this ?
(more seriously, I don't know the meaning of "let them eat cake" - care to exmplain please ?)

DinoDoc · July 7, 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
(more seriously, I don't know the meaning of "let them eat cake" - care to exmplain please ?)

It means that I don't care and the UN should have thought of that before letting thier building go to crap to this degree.