• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • UN Renovation and Construction: Issues for Congressional Oversight?

    The United Nations is in the midst of a $1.87 billion renovation project. Few argue that the U.N. building isn’t in vital need of an overhaul – it is falling apart at the seams and New York schools no longer allow students to visit the U.N. building because of its failure (perhaps inability is a better word) to comply with city safety standards.

    While the need for a renovation of the U.N. headquarters is clear, there are outstanding questions about the estimated costs and implementation of the plan. For instance, there are numerous stories of wasteful or unnecessary renovations.

    All of this should spark interest in Congress because U.S. taxpayers are footing 22 percent of the costs.

    Congress has held several hearings discussing whether the estimated costs for the U.N. renovation reflected a lowest cost option. The last full scale hearing on the U.N. reconstruction project was in 2005. At that hearing, Donald Trump estimated he could complete the project for $700 million – roughly half the U.N.’s original estimate of $1.2 billion and a quarter of the $3 billion price tag based on projections at the time of the hearing.

    The 2005 hearing was a long time ago. It’s past time for Congress to get an update on how the project is going and, most importantly, to determine if the project is proceeding with more oversight than is typical at the U.N. which has proven very susceptible to fraud on procurement. Indeed, the U.N.’s own auditors are concerned about the about the total cost of the project, the possible inaccuracy in the project calculations, the uncertainties in the schedule of the project, and the weaknesses in procurement and contract management.

    While they are at it, Congress should look skeptically into a revived proposal to build a brand new U.N. building on parkland adjacent to the U.N. headquarters. Currently, the U.N. pays rent to the city of New York for office space in two nearby buildings on 1st Avenue for $25 dollars a square foot. This is substantially below market rates, so the motivation for the City of New York to free up the space so it can rent it for higher amounts is clear.

    Less clear is the motivation for why Congress should support putting U.S. taxpayers on the hook to pay for 22 percent of the cost of building a new U.N. annex gift wrapped for permanent U.N. ownership in a lease-to-own scheme.

    And what about the desire of the local New Yorkers who have opposed the plan from the beginning because they would lose their local playground?

    While it may seem parochial, the issue seems ripe for consideration by Members of Congress from New York and those representing the other 300 million Americans who will be asked to pay for it.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to UN Renovation and Construction: Issues for Congressional Oversight?

    1. Ozzy6900 says:

      I love the line in the story "Currently, the U.N. pays rent to the city of New York for office space in two nearby buildings on 1st Avenue for $25 dollars a square foot.". That doesn't come close to what it costs to keep all of the delegates protected (Police & Fire) nor does it cover the damage that these delegates do (Diplomatic Immunity) while in NYC. My opinion has always been get rid of the UN – move it out of the United States! It has been here long enough so let someone else foot the bill. Besides, we are not in good standing with the World anyway so let's see France or Germany handle all of this garbage!

    2. John B. San Diego says:

      A new U.N building should be located in Brussels.

      This opportunity should not be squandered send the U.N. to the E.U. where it belongs! Let New York City sell the property and help relieve budget problems using profits if any remain and give N.Y.C. a tax break.

      The U. S. should send a small amount of cash to Brussels to help with new construction and a large amount due cash to assist New York City in the demolition and reclamation of the old U.N. site. In short good riddance U.N.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.