(CA) Poised to Sell Trophy Buildings to Unidentified Investors (and pay rent)

New York Times ^ | December 25, 2010 | Elizabeth Lesly Stevens

[CAGunRights83]

I agree. I don’t think the government functions effectively as a leasing office. Let’s see what these private investors, who have to turn a profit, can do with it. With that said, I hope the state government is not agreeing to pay super-high rents to these private owners. Being a resident of CA, I can tell you the state government has zero fiscal sense, so they would negotiate a bad deal.

[Grampa Dave]

We have a glut of so called trophy, good and nice buildings throughout this state that are vacant with no real prospects of good rentors and many more such buildings to become vacant next year.

Some of the vacancies are green BS companies that have gone belly up and will be bankrupt next year. No one wants those buildings (often specialized for the green bs.)

In our county, we are over wined, so many buildings previously used for bottling, storage and shipping of the wine are vacant. Some have been vacant going on 2 years.

Companies that got Sugar Daddy/counties/cities/state financial help re taxes and other expense have left relatively new buildings/sites with no real prospects of good rentors.

California could leave those premium buildings and rent the vacant ones throughout the state for much less money.

[SunkenCiv]

California would pocket about $1.3 billion after debt is paid off, but would then be a tenant in the same buildings. According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, the deal would cost taxpayers $6 billion over 35 years... Two prominent Bay Area lawyers sued to halt the sale, and the state appellate court issued a stay on Dec. 13, two days before the deal was scheduled to close. The plaintiffs are members of the state building authorities in San Francisco and Los Angeles who were ousted from their unpaid posts after questioning the plan. "This deal smells so bad. The more we get into it, the stronger the odor becomes," said Louise Renne, the former San Francisco city attorney who is among those working pro bono to scuttle the deal. "Even as of today, nobody knows for sure who is behind this sale."

Awww, some lawyers got inconvenienced, that's too bad. I love that use of the phrase "non-partisan" about something in California too. Let's see, $6 billion divided by 35 years... $14,285,714.29 a month, or about $1.3 million per building per month. That's in California. In a situation where the state gubmint is going to have to trim state jobs and hence not need to carry some soon to be empty buildings. Thanks Cincinatus' Wife.