Schwarzenegger silences critics of Calif. sell-off

[Hannah Bell]

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—The Schwarzenegger administration has removed appointees from two oversight bodies that must sign off on its plan to sell California state office buildings, replacing potential critics of the move with people who support it...In both cases, the replaced board members had questioned whether the administration's plan is in the best long-term interests of California taxpayers...

Marina del Ray developer Jerry B. Epstein... had asked the state for a cost-benefit analysis of the plan. Specifically, he wanted to compare the projected proceeds from the sell-off to the long-term cost of having to rent the Ronald Reagan State Building in downtown Los Angeles. The building is scheduled to be paid off next year. Instead, Epstein and retired real estate investment manager Rusty Doms received a two-sentence letter...saying they were being replaced...

Epstein and former San Francisco State Building Authority member Don Casper questioned whether the sell-off is in the best interest of taxpayers, especially since many of the buildings would be paid off in less than 10 years, meaning the state would own them free and clear... Under the administration's plan, California would sell the buildings and enter 20-year leases with the new owners, who could impose rent increases every five years.

State officials hope the properties will sell for about $2 billion total, but the net amount that will go to the state's general fund will be far less. After paying off the various construction bonds, the state expects to be left with $660 million, which would cover only about 3 percent of California's $20 billion deficit.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/business/ci_14846537

[Cleita]

1. Arnold is following the Republican business plan of divesting anything

they take over of all its assets, lining the pockets of the companies, who will be the first in line with their hands out, and then walking away when there is nothing left to plunder. You can be sure the buyers of these state buildings will get them at a below market price and can sell them in the future at a nice profit. Now that he's a lame duck he can push through this agenda with impunity.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. Nothing but privatization --

and a stupid fucking idea.

[inna]

9. It's not stupid actually, it's evil genius.

It's all about further privatization.

[formercia]

3. You have to admit they have really big Nads.

The Net return will probably be negative in the current market and the State will be in debt forever.

Der Gropenfuhrer strikes again. Skynet owns California.

[erpowers]

4. That Is Ridiculous

That is just ridiculous. That is just like selling your house to someone and then renting it from them. It seems to me that it would cost the people of California more to sell the buildings and then rent them then just keep the buildings. Even though they would make money selling the buildings they would then rent the buildings for 20 years. There are many different ways to deal with the $20 billion deficit of California.

[T Wolf]

6. Especially once the sales to the puke cronies are completed for pennies-on-the-dollar and

the "rents" they pay in the future are higher than the current costs.

[FiveGoodMen]

7. That almost sounds like what happened when CA privatized its energy!

[Hannah Bell]

8. ya think? & now they're writing legislation to forbid reestablishment of public utilities.

[ixion]

5. Hi, and Welcome to the Great State of California, brought to you by Wal-Mart

wheeee! :crazy:

[elehhhhna]

10. we have become the ussr.