Slashdot Mirror
Arizona Considers Selling Capitol Buildings
Things are so bad in Arizona that legislators are considering selling the House and Senate buildings where they've met and worked for more than 50 years. Dozens of other state properties may also be sold. The plan is to sell the properties and then lease them back over several years before assuming ownership again. "We've mortgaged the legislative halls," said an exasperated state Rep. Steve Yarbrough, a Chandler Republican. "That just tells you how extraordinary the times are. To me, it's something we're going to have to do no matter how much we find it undesirable." I bet they could get a great price on the Grand Canyon.
Low taxes can have high costs.
This is the worst I've heard of yet. How about they try to fix the problem instead of a temporary fix? That and I don't see how this is actually going to save any money. They'll incur the cost of moving everything to a new location, rents at the new location...etc etc etc.
On a per capita basis, Arizona is worse off than California. The cause is due to a confluence of factors, including not saving enough for the bad times, taxes being too low or spending being too high, having such a growth oriented economy, etc.
But there are two items which I am CONVINCED are major factors as well.
1) Term limits: They suck. I used to support them, but I was wrong. Term limits result in a legislature that doesn't know WTF it's doing at any time. There is no institutional memory, and once someone understands the complex process of creating and passing legislation - they get the boot. Additionally, because no one exactly knows their jobs, term limits result in a weak branch of government, so the executive tends to dominate. This is not what our respective state constitutions intended. I wish people would put two and two together on this.
2) Illegal alien "crackdown" and employer sanctions: AZ is suffering a major real estate crisis. The crisis is for reasons obvious to anyone, but a contributing factor for our crappy economy and crappy real estate was the crack down on illegal aliens. Folks don't realize that these people rent and spend here too (often times without the societal expense us "real people" tend to cause society). When you have sweeps, a lack of employment and a general sense of animosity towards those who (in my view) are major contributors to society, they move one state over (they're not moving back to Mexico). I wish people would understand this point too.
Certainly, the overall economic factors play a very large role, but AZ has gotten itself in a big mess all by itself...
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Tax and spend liberals (both R and D) has even higher costs.
Here's a novel concept .... LIMIT GOVERNMENT SPENDING.
Lets start cutting all the crap out of budgets, removing social programs that don't work, and get back to basics. How about stop stupid feel good programs that do nothing but create stupid rules that cost nothing but money on things that don't work.
Yeah, times are tough. TOUGH SHIT. We can't afford all the pretty shiny programs when life was easier. Time is now to TIGHTEN our belts and get rid of cruft.
Yeah, some people might get hurt in the process, but if we continue going like we currently are, we are hurting future generations. People are already getting hurt, we shouldn't be passing that crap on to our children.
I know, bleeding heart liberals will go ape shit over this, but I don't freakin care. Because they are selfish twits who are only thinking about the here and now, and don't give a shit about the future generations.
Selling buildings and leasing them back is NOT productive in the long run, and is VERY short sighted. It is sacrificing the future instead of dealing with the core problems NOW.
CUT SPENDING, don't increase future spending to pay for today's spending.
What I would like is a automatic revocation of politicians who can't pass a balanced budget on time. You can't do that, you're fired and can never run for any office anywhere ever again. Throw them all out!
Maybe then we'll get someone besides a career politician into office who can do what is needed, even when unpopular.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You don't live in Arizona do you? They've already cut everything they can.
I doubt this. Have a look at Wikipedia
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_budget
In 2009 the State Budget is $55 billion dollars. In 2000, the State Budget was less than half of that. Did our wages double from 2000 to 2009? If not, then why the hell did spending? Every state that is in red ink could easily avert its fiscal crisis if all it did was revert to a 2004 budget... We're not even talking 4 years ago...
There's constitutional restrictions on what they can touch (direct voter mandates cannot be cut)
This is an excuse. There is just a lack of political will to really make hard choices.
Change the State Constitution.
This is my sig.
Im confused here... If they sell the buildings then lease them from the new owners do they not have to pay rent? Then in a few years when the economy is better wont they have to buy it back for more then they sold it for? Real estate generally increases in value not decreases. It would make the whole deal a loss for the state then wouldnt it? I see no way that this would help out with their yearly budget except for the year they sell it. After that its only going to be a net loss.
It seems to me this sounds like a bs accounting scheme. Kinda similiar how a few states say its cheaper to keep a murderer in prison for life then it is to execute him within a few years. Its looks great in the short term but in the long run it costs much more.
It just sounds really stupid to me. I can understand trying to get some money to make ends meet but this whole deal makes me scratch my head.
Canada is weathering the downturn much better because they have a better regulation of the financial sector, thus the wheelers and dealers there were not allowed to over-leverage to ridiculous proportions in a drunken fit of greed.
What happens if whomever they sell the buildings to decides not to lease back? Or better yet evicts them for failing to pay rent?
I think a capital rotunda would make a fantastic music venue... how much are they asking? :)
The state needs to spend in order to keep up with population growth. It doesn't matter what the GDP is doing, the people require a certain amount of money. The alternative is to live with a lower quality of life, but we chose to have a larger budget instead.
But it's not always easy being big - and getting bigger at a rapid clip - in the middle of a desert. The growth that Arizona - and greater Phoenix, in particular - are experiencing has placed a great strain on the use of public land, roadways, and precious natural resources - especially water.
We live in a desert man, where do you think we get our water from? Do you think it's cheap? What about the people coming across the border and using emergency services, law enforcement, power, water, etc? Where are their taxes? Why am I paying for them? Maybe if they were paying their share we would have a larger GDP and you wouldn't be complaining that spending is outpacing the GDP.
There are a *lot* of issues in this state which require a lot of money. If you don't want spending to outpace the GDP, then be prepared to accept a lower quality of life as the population continues to rise.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The basics are part of what is killing our budget. We are paying expenses for education, health care, public safety etc to cover a segment of the population that doesn't pay any taxes at all because they aren't supposed to be here in the first place.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
But just keep spouting the only idea you republicans have left...
And your idea is, what, just raise the rates on people. Face it, this is entirely a manufactured crisis. All you have are excuses... do you mean to tell me that Arizona is spending 27 billion a year more on roads in 2008 than it was in 2000? Come on, that's just not the case. It's 8 years of passing benefits and programs the state cannot afford.
This is my sig.
Which naturally leads to tax cuts to "starve the beast".
Budget deficit? Tax cuts.
Budget surplus? Tax cuts.
War too expensive? Tax cuts.
Poverty? Tax cuts.
Worsening education? Tax cuts.
Rising crime? Tax cuts.
Declining crime? Tax cuts.
Pollution? Tax cuts.
Sorry, but I prefer to live in a state with a functioning government that can actually provide for its citizens. Take a hike and go live in Somalia if you're so opposed to civilization.
In the last 8 years, Arizona has had a Republican majority in their government
The moral of the story is that the "moral majority" is just as bad at spending as the Democrats are.
If they keep decimating school spending, no companies will want to relocate here, and their tax base (and draw for producing citizens, not retiree's and snowbirds) will continue to shrink.
What amazes me the most about Arizona is that the state is sitting on top of some pretty good sized mineral deposits - gold, silver, copper... I would be hawking off mining rights. You have Resolution Copper held up in permitting, and I'd think taxes from that alone would help considerably.
This is my sig.
So population and inflationary costs would be in line with a 158% increase, but instead the budget increased 200%, give-or-take.
However, assuming that government is a service (something I don't assume, but most people do), the cost of providing that service should go *down* with respect to what they provide, and having a larger population should provide better economies of scale, making their services *cheaper* per person.
So the government is doing the opposite of what private services do. Getting more expensive with time rather then less, and getting more expensive the more its "customer base" grows.
"Increasing technology levels"? Technology improves efficiency and lowers cost, not the other way around. In addition, I don't think individuals' absolute wealth is really increasing any more. Any increases we should be seeing are offset by the geometrically increasing amounts of our wealth that are siphoned off by the government (especially at the federal level) to pay for wars and bank bailouts.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.