Another U.N. joke
It's bad enough that the perpetually money-grubbing United Nations has its eye on constructing a new building next to its existing Tower of Babble. Now New York officials are cheering what inevitably will be another U.N. mission through U.S. pockets.
The "boon" from this surefire boondoggle would be millions of dollars for New York. And that would pay to complete the Manhattan Waterfront Greenway along the East River, according to The New York Times. The city and state have until Oct. 10 to come to terms on the land deal.
"(W)e think mathematically this is a win," says New York state Sen. Liz Krueger. But not for taxpayers.
U.N. projects notoriously run overbudget. In this case, U.S. taxpayers, who foot almost a quarter of the U.N. budget, would be shish-kebabed for the lion's share of a new building that, as yet, has no cost estimate. Brett D. Schaefer of The Heritage Foundation lowballs the figure at $400 million plus $65 million for the adjacent New York property.
And the Obama administration is supposed to follow New York down this U.N. rathole just so the Big Apple can gain a scenic esplanade?
Start spreadin' the news: Taxpayers should have no part of it, New York. And if Turtle Bay has a problem with that, let it find a new home elsewhere -- and a new patsy to pay for it.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.