(Jerry) Brown drops controversial plan to sell state buildings

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

California will not go through with its controversial plan to sell state buildings then lease them back to help plug the budget deficit, Gov. Jerry Brown announced this morning.

The proposed sale of the California Supreme Court headquarters in San Francisco and ten other buildings would have raised $1.2 billion for the state. But Brown said the plan was short-sighted and would have cost taxpayers billions lease back those buildings over a 35 year period.

... The deal was arranged by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and had been approved by the Legislature, but got caught up in the courts after three former state Building Authority members sued the state to block the sale. They claimed the state would illegally waste taxpayer dollars.

... The sale agreement includes a $50 million penalty against the state if it backs out of the deal. (Joseph Cotchett, lawyer for two of the plaintiffs) said the buyers, an investment group called California First, might go to court to try to force the state to proceed with the sale. But he said he and his clients would argue that the contract "was an unconstitutional act and therefore was void, and there should be no penalty."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/09/BA0O1HKRGD.DTL&tsp=1

It was just too damn complicated to really work, IMHO...

:wtf:

Of course it would have cost the taxpayers more in the long run with such a short sighted plan.

I'm confident he will do the same with what Arnold and the legislature have left him. This is a very reassuring move on Brown's part. It almost makes up for his lack of effectiveness as mayor of my home town, Oakland. ( I have voted for Jerry Brown in every election he has run since I turned 18 in 1976 and have never regretted those votes.)

Sell of our assets, only to lease them back??? WTF?

When people try to run government like a business you see incredibly stupid ideas such as these.

The Legislature which is controlled by Democrats passed the measure 117-3. I don't know the financials of this plan but companies that use office buildings do this all of the time. They are able to offload maintenance and repair costs to the owner of the building. This is an important consideration with older office buildings.

You know business where they can liquidate their assets, fire all employees, and sell to an off-shore company to make a buck.

We're talking about running a GOVERNMENT - one that needs buildings to take care of the people's business.

They are still there. No one is shipping the buildings brick by brick to China. You DO know what a lease is DON'T you??

it would make them money initially but very soon (do you know just how soon?) it would cost the state more in leasing than they made in selling.

then rent it back at $700/month.

This was the second stupidest idea Schwarzenegger came up with, the first being running for governor. Of course neither were his ideas, but rather his Pete Wilson gang of cronies who have been ripping off the state for years and years.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(02-09) 14:44 PST Sacramento -- California will not go through with its controversial plan to sell state buildings then lease them back to help plug the budget deficit, Gov. Jerry Brown announced this morning.

The proposed sale of the California Supreme Court headquarters in San Francisco and ten other buildings would have raised $1.2 billion for the state. But Brown said the plan was short-sighted and would have cost taxpayers billions to lease back those buildings over a 35 year period.

"The sale of the buildings really didn't make much sense," Brown said at a news conference at the Capitol.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/09/BA0O1HKRGD.DTL

anyone with half a brain could see what this plan was all about.

Fortunately, our new Gov. is smarter than most.

But will he take my advice? I have a three point plan to turn CA around:

1. reinstate the car fee for vehicles worth over $40K

2. fix the loophole in prop 13 that lets commercial building get the same tax break that homes get. (that was the whole purpose of prop 13 - to help business, it was never about helping the people).

3. create a single-payer plan and lead the nation.

Wo, what do you say, Gov. Brown?

Gov. Brown has to say:

"Brown's proposed spending plan for 2010-11 includes the $1.2 billion in anticipated revenue from the building sale. He said he will amend his plan to make up for that by borrowing against internal state funds."

Right there in the article is the answer to your question.

It worked, I suspect. But he never planned to actually do it. He knows better than to pull such a boneheaded RW move.

Brown should investigate that. The companies threatening to sue might not be so sure of themselves if they were being investigated for fraud.