(Maybe they can just sell sponsorships – promoted by ClubTwitty)
(And if legislators have it their way, it won’t be theirs either…)
From AZCentral:
Call it a sign of desperate times: Legislators are considering selling the House and Senate buildings where they’ve conducted state business for more than 50 years.
Apparently, the logic is…
“What are our choices?” asked McComish, a Phoenix Republican. “We could cut more, or we could raise taxes more. Borrowing over the long term, we think, is better for the people, better for the economy.”
Nevermind that by borrowing, they’ll have to raise taxes even more to cover the interest. Why not just issue a bond?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Election Day 2024 Open Thread #1
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Election Day 2024 Open Thread #1
BY: cgrandits
IN: Election Day 2024 Open Thread #1
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Election Day 2024 Open Thread #1
BY: unnamed
IN: Election Day 2024 Open Thread #1
BY: cgrandits
IN: Election Day 2024 Open Thread #1
BY: unnamed
IN: Election Day 2024 Open Thread #1
BY: itlduso
IN: Election Day 2024 Open Thread #1
BY: ParkHill
IN: Election Day 2024 Open Thread #1
BY: harrydoby
IN: Election Day 2024 Open Thread #1
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
No inside deals for Friends of Arizona Republicans…
And it will be cheaper than just issuing the bonds, too. Right?
Yah.
Governor Owens was seriously considering something similar for Colorado buildings back in 04-05. I don’t remember if Colorado actually sold any buildings, though.
https://www.cu.edu/sg/messages…
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir…
I love the penny-wise and pound-foolish philosophy of “borrowing over the long term is better.” I wish this legislator would just come right out and say “I don’t want to put my job on the line by even considering raising taxes, so I’m going to push this problem off about 99 years, when I’ll be long gone before anyone realizes how much this idea screws the state.”
resurfaces every time the state hits a fiscal crisis. Owens DID consider it during the fiscal mess earlier in the decade. No buildings were actually sold or leased.
An estimate at that time showed something like $6 billion in state building assets belong to higher ed institutions – that’s where the REAL money is if Colorado were to do the lease-back option.
That idea surfaced very briefly during the last budget discussions during the 2009 session but nobody took it seriously. It wouldn’t surprise me if it came up again.
all the time.
I have to say that has merit. “The chair recognizes the senator from the gatorade thirst quenching __ district” or just a giant screen with commercials in the lobby. I mean people already think their legislators are paid for by various interests…
to the distinguished Senator from Remax.
Is brought to you by GI JOE: Rise of Cobra. In theaters soon.
the Miller-Coors Education Funding Act of 2010 is passed. Will the Mrs. Butterworth’s Sergeant at Arms please deliver the bill to the Verizon Senate for its consideration.
And with this gavel, I adjourn the Colorado House-Mondays-at-8pm-on-KDVR of Representatives.
maybe we shouldn’t laugh — they just may consider this to balance the state budget one of these years…
…the reps in their legislative houses were businessmen. So, it wasn’t so far fetched as having the honcho from CF&I representing Pueblo.
“What’s good for CF&I is good for the country.” Or something.
’cause I wrote about it back in 2005…
https://www.cu.edu/sg/messages…
The state’s building assets back then were valued at $8.6 billion, with just under $6 billion held by state colleges and universities.
Throw up a bunch of tents for prisoners in the building a la Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County — although, granted, the tents wouldn’t be outdoors like Arpaio’s. The legislators can work around the convicts.
resulted in delay in the phasing out of old and dangerous cars that were past their useful life. The result, earlier this year, was that people died.
Sale/leaseback deals are largely driven by taxes on the private party side. Changing tax laws so that such absurd ideas don’t make sense and using the money raised by the change to provide federal fiscal aid to states would make more sense than this plan.