ALBANY – The Battle of Turtle Bay is escalating in the state Legislature, with some lawmakers emphasizing the safety and economic benefits of expanding the U.N. headquarters at Manhattan while others would just as soon see the world body driven out of New York altogether.

The current facility, which is 52 years old, isn’t sufficiently safeguarded against fires and terrorist attacks, defenders of the renovation project said. A proposed 35-story annex would be built to modern building codes and security standards, and would further reduce the terrorism threat by eventually consolidating U.N. staff currently housed in other buildings around the city at a single location, these officials said.

The United Nations needs approval from state lawmakers – and eventually city officials – to move ahead with planning for the project, because it calls for building outside the area previously set aside for the complex. U.N. officials have already secured a $1.2 billion construction loan from Congress, though not on the interest-free terms they sought.

The situation is giving New York politicians the chance to air their grievances against the world body, ranging from the unpaid parking tickets of diplomats to the member nations’ hostility to Israel and opposition to the war in Iraq.

Those bad feelings were enough to persuade the state Senate, in a session Thursday, to postpone voting on legislation allowing the United Nations Development Corporation, a state agency, to move ahead with planning.

In the aftermath of that setback, the president of the development corporation, Roy Goodman, and the Assembly sponsor of the bill, Steven Sanders of Manhattan, argued the project ultimately will benefit the Turtle Bay neighborhood around the United Nations, and the city as a whole.

“One can stick one’s head in the sand … and say, ‘We hate the U.N.,'”Mr. Sanders, a Democrat who represents Turtle Bay, said Friday. “That’s a political statement. But the fact of the matter is, if this building is going to stay here, it has to be structurally safe and it has to be secure. Right now I don’t think anybody can say that’s the case.”

Mr. Sanders said he and the other state lawmakers who represent the affected area support the current bill, which authorizes only planning, but have not taken a final position on the merits of the project.

“The enactment of this bill is not the end of the process,” he said. “It’s just putting in place a process. … If there’s not a planning process, then we are stuck with an outdated building.”

Mr.Goodman said playing host to the United Nations adds $2.5 billion a year to the city’s economy, not including jobs connected to the construction project.

“We’re doing it as much for New York as we are for the international picture,” said Mr. Goodman, a Republican who represented the neighborhood in the state Senate until 2002. “It is a win for New York because of the economic impact.It’s a win for the United Nations because they’ll have a good new building.”

The U.N. plan calls for erecting a 35-story office building in part of what is now Robert Moses Park, a playground across the street from the existing office complex. The building would temporarily house employees in the current Secretariat building while it undergoes renovation, and later would be used to consolidate U.N. offices from other parts of the city.

“The people who will be occupying this building are scattered all over Manhattan in insecure office buildings, and this building is going to be built with very heavy anti-terrorism measures,” Mr. Goodman said.

He emphasized that the project would disturb only part of the playground, which is currently used principally for roller hockey, and that the development corporation would replace the public space lost by creating a much larger esplanade along the East River.

The project nevertheless faces stiff opposition from neighbors, who resent the intrusion on their park and consider the proposed building too big for the location. Others opponents raise geopolitical arguments against the United Nations as a whole, pointing to its anti-American tendencies and evidence of corruption.

“We have a U.N. here that has a tendency to just ignore us, insult us, be a bad neighbor, and not do what it should do,” state Senator Martin Golden, a Republican of Brooklyn, said last week.

Mr. Golden scoffed at the idea that New York City benefits economically from the United Nations’ presence.

“If they left tomorrow morning,” he said, the U.N. office space would be filled within a year.

“Some corporation would come in or some housing would be developed,” Mr. Golden said. “The reason we’re the capital of the world is not because the U.N. is here. We’re the capital of the world because we’re the finance capital of the world. Everybody comes here because of the greatness of the city, not because of the U.N.”

Mr. Golden said he would reconsider his position if the secretary-general, Kofi Annan, would cooperate with an investigation by the U.S. Senate of alleged abuses of the U.N.’s oil-for-food program in Iraq.

“I have no problem in approving this if Kofi Annan does what he’s supposed to do and opens up his books,” he said. “I’d much rather see him step down, but if I can’t get that, I’ll take the books.”

The chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State, Michael Long, called for the U.N. headquarters to be moved to France.

“The United Nations wants to rule the world, is not supportive of the United States, folded up shop when its members were attacked, does not pay for its support, is a burden to the residents of New York and the United States, and our elected officials are considering making it bigger at our expense,” Mr. Long said.

Asked about the issue last week, Governor Pataki said he was prepared to sign the bill in question.

“I agree with the concept,” Mr. Pataki said. “The U.N. is here. For all of the … disappointments I think we all feel toward some actions or inactions that occur at the U.N., I think it’s positive that they’re in New York.”