America refuses to pay rent on Tokyo Embassy

I can't find a link, but apparently on the news just this morning, America officially gave their statement (after some years of deliberation?) on the whole Embassy back rent thing that "this is America... we owe no rent".

Rent is amazingly cheap, at some $15,000 USD per year, in Akasaka. The land could rent for millions a month. What I don't understand is they're apparently only 10 years late. Why did they pay rent up until 10 years ago if it "was America".

 

Here's a link to the story:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?nn20051001a4.htm

 

Just about every UN member racks up parking tickets while in NYC and every country refuses to pay them. Why should we have to pay rent anywhere?

 

It's considered native soil for political and legal (perhaps) purposes. This is doesnt mean it's not part of and surrounded by the actual country of Japan.

Since America has an interest in maintaining an Embassy, like any other country, then there should be valuable consideration paid to the host country . It's not like the US owns Japan.

This could further hinge on the existence of an agreement. Does the Jpn embassy pay rent or some sort of payment in the US for the space they occupy?

 

Which means part two of my question is the one that should be addressed. Why the fuck would you occupy a country and pay them a very, very low fee for primo land in the first place?

I would really like to know what other countries charge for embassies.

Um, it is "considered" the land the of the country the embassy occupies. They never really talk about who owns the deeds. [See Edit Below]

Something I just don't know. However, I can't imagine any single consulate in the US occupying as valuable a piece of land. NY & Cali ones close maybe. The rest? A fraction.

EDIT:

source

 

And limey -- that's the old story. Apparently the new development is that they've addressed the issue. Their comment: we're not paying.

That is a bit of a slap in the cock. Koizumi who was only moderately popular, got involved in a really, really fucking stupid war b/c he liked Bush, took a lot of flack for it, and look at what the administration does. Real friendly.

 

I say the US have a bloody cheek after the billions of yen the Japanese have handed over to them in the past to help out their economic situation.

Yakumo

 

I think the US needs to throw the cowboys out and hire some real diplomats.

Force and grace go together. Diplomacy is about both.

 

I know - the later part of the story had already expired from the one place I did find a reference (japantoday.com). I'd heard the story somewhere before, also - possibly on NPR (National Public Radio).

BTW, it's not just rent in Tokyo - there's been a bit of a tiff going on in London, where the US Embassy refused to pay the 'congestion charge'... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6061660.stm
They argued it was a tax, from which the Vienna Convention relieves them of any duty to pay, where the British authorities maintain it is a 'service', or essentially a toll, which they are obliged to cough up for.

 

Yeah. The ironic thing I see is the US has some extremely strict tax laws for it's citizens (I pay US taxes and I've lived there only 2 years of my professional life), yet, they want to go around the world and be cheap fucks? Really, really put off by politicians.

 

That's not technically true. Embassies enjoy extraterritorial status but is still part of the host country. For all intents and purposes though it is "soverign soil" since the host country is not permitted on the grounds. Especially if they own the land.

Many countries do not own the land their embassies are on though. The embassy in Japan being one example. The catch 22 in that is that while they are there the extraterritorial status is in effect and they can't really be compelled to do anything.

Countries pull this childish crap all the time. The situation in New York APE mentioned is a prime example. The US should pay the back rent (it's not like they can't) but my guess is that their pissed about something else entirely (probably military related in the case of the Japanese embassy) and this is their little way of getting back.

As for the case in London I wouldn't pay it either. It is a tax which they are not obligated to pay despite what the mayor of London says.

 

Setting up cheap whore houses for an entire army. There's a reason to get pissed off.



Not
</Borat accent>

 

Errr, no, like A Snow said.
The Straight Dope to the rescue: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/membassy.htm

 

Actually it says that the US and Japan haven't agreed on a new contract and rent hasn't been paid since the last one expired. A more appropriate headline would be, "US and Japan 8 years behind on negotiating a new lease."

But that wouldn't get people angry....

 

Still wouldn't change the fact that

1: They didn't pay rent
2: You didn't read my initial post.

The ironic thing? Evicting anyone in Japan (even for not paying rent) is like pulling an 8 carrot diamond out of their dick hole.

 

I did read your initial post. Did I miss something...? You're angry that rent wasn't paid but there's no lease. They need to negotiate a new lease then negotiate the past rental amounts since 1999. No one is going to make a payment until that's settled because it just wouldn't make any sense to.

 

Not really upset, I just find it humorous. But

...presumably was stated in negotiations for a new contract. I didn't see it on the news. My wife did.

 

Oh, I see. I haven't seen those comments anywhere else so I guess I can't confirm or deny them.