When Jeane Kirkpatrick took over as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, she and her staff discovered that the U.S. was not taken seriously in the body.  For years, the unwritten U.S. policy was to turn the cheek against often incendiary remarks made against the U.S.  The result was a dwindling respect for U.S. diplomatic efforts.

Kirkpatrick's reaction was to take the body very seriously.  When some government gave the common hostile speech against the U.S., she called them on it, often showing up in their offices to discuss the facts - or lack thereof - surrounding their remarks.

This change in policy was perhaps capped by a comment from her Envoy, Charles Lichenstein, in response to a threat to move the body out of the United States.  Designed to strike fear, the proposal was treated differently under the Reagan administration.  Lichenstein wrote, simply: "We will put no impediment in your way, and we will be down at the dock bidding you a fond farewell as you sail off into the sunset." 

Message sent.

Now, facing the need to expand, the United Nations has hinted that it might need to look elsewhere if New York doesn't provide land.  Mayor Bloomberg is concerned.

But Herbert London, at City Journal, has done the accounting and discovered that it may pay to revisit Lichenstein's thinking:

"Donald Trump has said that his UN-adjacent property has about the same square footage as the United Nations’ space, about 900,000 square feet; based on the average price of a residential square foot on Manhattan’s east side near the UN ($1,083), the total opportunity cost, assuming this space was converted into apartments, would be $975 million per year."