Should the United Nations be changed of location every Year?

Question

As you may know, the United Nations is a diplomatic organization that puts together representatives from different countries, to deal with their problems and stimulate cooperation.
Since the early 1950's it has been located in New York City, USA, by 59th street and 1st Avenue.

A friend of mine who lives in the city informed me of something very interesting:
Most New Yorkers hate the United Nations being in their city.
The cite quality of life issues, mainly.
Diplomats have large areas reserved for private parking, and NO ONE else can park in the streets allocated to them. You park, you get towed, and have to pay the $350.00 towing fee and the $150.00 Fine to get your car back.
But on the other hand, the city it is owed millions of dollars on parking fines from these diplomats, since they have diplomatic immunity, they just park wherever they want, (in front of hydrants, handicap spots, etc)
and then they never pay the fines, citing the beforementioned immunity.

Recently a study passed among real-state agents in midtown Manhattan show that the prohibitive rent prices in midtown are fueled mainly by diplomats, who don't care how much they spend in rent, but get the most lavish apartments, all paid for by their respective governments. 
That makes apartments in the area priced out of range for most middle class New Yorkers, and basically, prices them out of midtown.
Similar reasoning applies to the area stores, that are so used to cater to costumers whose AMEX are being bankrolled by a foreign government, they don't mind closing an Armani store just for them, so they can shop in privacy.

QUESTION1:
Would it make sense to mandate that UN gets relocated every ... 4 years (just like the Olympic Games) to different States, like for example Utah, Colorado, or Iowa, so they can benefit from this stimulus and influx on foreign personnel?

QUESTION2: 
How Often should they be moved?

QUESTION3:
Should they also be hosted by other countries, not just the US?

Anonym · Accepted Answer

The first to people made some good points about the cost and oranization problem. However i think that the move is in 4 or 5 year intervals like you sead then that would be ample time to organize and prepare. And a big move would mean that more people would get jobs. Maybe some strugaling small businesses around the country could get a little help from this. The hosting it in other country dosen't seem like a bad idea so long as we are carful abut were that is.

Sally · Answer

Yeah, rich diplomats soooo ruin the quality of life. I'm sure Midtown apartments would be totally affordable if it weren't for those pesky diplomats. And there'd be all this free parking! And all the $90 a day garages would go out of business!

I say, send them to Detroit, they'll be glad to have them!

Anonym · Answer

I hoped that you were talking about another country. Then we could reduce our share of the funding. It is worthless as an organization, but at least it gives opportunity for negotiations between countries that do not share ambassadors.
UN resolutions are worthless and the nuclear watch group cannot do anything, so cut it down to a small group of diplomats and move them around.

foofy2u2 · Answer

This is a simple answer. If they moved around to different states then more money would be spread and help the economy. Most states sure could use the extra revenue. NYC isn't exactly in dire need of money from the diplomats. Obama says to spread the wealth!!

Jeresec · Answer

1) No, the cost of moving everything lock stock and barrel, and all the diplomats and support workers would cost a fortune.  A lot of support staff and security are native New Yorkers and would lose their jobs if it moved.

2) See above

3) No, for the cost reason, and the UN needs to be in a wealthy metropolis, in a stable country, for it to work.  It could be moved to Japan, Europe, Oz etc, but that would be seen as discriminating against the other nations, so its best to leave it in the US.

open4one · Answer

I'd like to see them own their own piece of real estate somewhere in the world, like the Vatican.  

There must be an island somewhere that nobody wants.  Or maybe the next country that starts a war and then sues for Peace in the U.N. has to give up a few square miles.

mommanuke · Answer

That would only work if the UN were relatively simple and temporary like the Olympics.  Not only would this cause major reorganization problems in physical plants every four years, but it would also cost member nations hundreds of thousands of dollars that in the world economy today would be prohibitive.  No one currently objects to it being permanently in the US(at least as far as I know).  The logistics would be a nightmare, not to mention the infighting "Me next!" "No, me!" in deciding where to go next.

Anonym · Answer

The UN needs to move to Switzerland and be neutral. Right now they use the USA as their home to have meeting after meeting condemning us for all kinds of silly things. We don't need it, get them out and stop listening to these fools. It's about time we stopped caring what Luxembourg, Kenya  and Venezuala think about us.

2salty4u · Answer

No , The UN  and  it's  One World Government Agenda should simply be abolished .

ronaldvflores · Answer

I like it. And, yes, I think rotating among countries is an excellent suggestion.

Should the United Nations be changed of location every Year?

12 Antworten