Quote:
Originally Posted by Scruffy
Thats what ive been thinking about. The big hoopla is because this tower would be built over a park and the neighborhood would lose its park.
|
They would lose just a portion of that particular park, which in reality would just be replaced on the other side...
Quote:
|
building on city owned land requires certain approvals. But for the UN to buy this land for its international sanctuary and so that it wouldn't be considered part of the US anymore, that would create a shitstorm. in short, no. my belief is that the land will not be annexed into the UN territory.
|
Building on any city
parkland requires approval from the state. It would have to be replaced, same as what happened with the new Yankee Stadium that is being built on the site of what used to be a park. Being annexed to the UN complex, it would no doubt have the same rules and regulations.