Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FromLori

I am not a fiancial genius (nor do I play one on TV) but all I see this doing is borrowing money from the future and paying it back over time. Sort of like a payday loan.

The people and functions that go on within those building is not going away. The state will still need them. Right now they are (I presume) paid for.

While it is true that the states loses any property tax on the property, and that they must pay the maintenance on the building I think it would also be true anyone that buys them will include those cost into the rent.

This is just another way to kick the can down the road without solving the basic problem, the state of California is spending more than it can afford.


11 posted on 10/12/2010 8:05:59 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN (California does not have a money problem, it has a spending problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: CIB-173RDABN

Can you imagine the lock-out clauses that must be in the lease?

“If CA is one day late paying the rent...”


12 posted on 10/12/2010 8:13:38 AM PDT by patton (Obama has replaced "Res Publica" with "Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: CIB-173RDABN

Actually yes it’s a way to kick the can down the road but!

“The Associated Press reported earlier this year that the deal would end up costing the state $5.2 billion in rent over 20 years, perhaps saddling taxpayers with costs beyond whatever the state would net from the sale.

Three of the properties already are paid off, while four others were expected to be paid off in the next five years.”


13 posted on 10/12/2010 8:17:25 AM PDT by FromLori (FromLori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson