Has Anyone Looked At This Amendment Change to the Constitution On Nov Ballot?

N

newsjunky

Driving Instructor
I have heard almost nothing about this one.

Link:
http://rn-t.com/view/full_story/20484376/article-EDITORIAL--Surprise-on-ballot?instance=news_page_lead_story


“Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to provide for a reduction in the state’s operating costs by allowing the General Assembly to authorize certain state agencies to enter into multiyear rental agreements?”

Its approval by voters would in turn make into law Senate Bill 37, already OK’d and waiting in the wings, that permits the State Properties Commission (and if one can find the fine print, also the regents/University System and Department of Labor) to enter into multi-year leases (10 years tops) and sale/leaseback deals (20 years tops).
 
I haven't seen this bill yet but have heard several people talk on the idea. I think it was Newt sometime last year on this and also doing budgets every 2 years. The state leases a lot of office space all over the state and multi-year leases can result in deep discounts to the rates. I see where it can save the state lots of $$$$'s
 
I will be voting no. As a rule I do not like messing with the Constitution and I don't think it is a good idea to lock the next administration into something done by the present administration.

Where is LTD when you need him???
 
I'm not sure where I stand on this one either. I do like the idea of the state being able to enter leases for longer periods of time to save money though.
 
Whomever is in charge of ballot wording needs to up their skillz! There isn't enough info to make an intelligent decision and it just sets them up for failure. While it is probably a good idea, my initial thought would be "no" without more information.
 
The intent is not to inform. Too much information can cause it to be defeated. "Never give the government more power" is a general rule of thumb for me these days. Especially if you can't be sure about what you are giving them.
 
Madea said:
Whomever is in charge of ballot wording needs to up their skillz! There isn't enough info to make an intelligent decision and it just sets them up for failure. While it is probably a good idea, my initial thought would be "no" without more information.
Click to expand...

Excellent purnt. My default vote is ALWAYS no unless I'm persuaded otherwise. Of course, as you say, they can word things backwards and confuse the vote that way.
 
I know in MI the state enters into long-term leases, but the lease also gives them the option to terminate it at will. They may pay a penalty for terminating the lease early, but the savings still in the long run of things is tremendous.
 
Foxmeister said:
I know in MI the state enters into long-term leases, but the lease also gives them the option to terminate it at will. They may pay a penalty for terminating the lease early, but the savings still in the long run of things is tremendous.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And knowing how often state governments change (often with each new administration), moving, shifting, upsizing, downsizing, etc., I should think this would be a good thing.
 
mei lan said:
Foxmeister said:
I know in MI the state enters into long-term leases, but the lease also gives them the option to terminate it at will. They may pay a penalty for terminating the lease early, but the savings still in the long run of things is tremendous.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And knowing how often state governments change (often with each new administration), moving, shifting, upsizing, downsizing, etc., I should think this would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

For the most part, I think research would show that the buildings the state has been leasing, have been leased by them for quite some time. I seriously doubt they relocate offices that much.
 
Foxmeister said:
mei lan said:
Foxmeister said:
I know in MI the state enters into long-term leases, but the lease also gives them the option to terminate it at will. They may pay a penalty for terminating the lease early, but the savings still in the long run of things is tremendous.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And knowing how often state governments change (often with each new administration), moving, shifting, upsizing, downsizing, etc., I should think this would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

For the most part, I think research would show that the buildings the state has been leasing, have been leased by them for quite some time. I seriously doubt they relocate offices that much.
Click to expand...

Large agencies, true. But outlying offices shift a good deal. I worked for one state agency (a departure from my usual private sector sanity) that reorg'd about three times in the three years I was there, and went through differing office spaces. Also saw it when I worked for a private sector company who did a lot of work with various state agencies. The big depts., like corrections or whatnot, who have humongous spaces downtown or wherever, are pretty stable. But smaller and/or outlying ones are the ones I was thinking of. Any time the state doesn't have to own a brick-and-mortar something would be a good deal, I should think.
 
mei lan said:
Foxmeister said:
mei lan said:
Foxmeister said:
I know in MI the state enters into long-term leases, but the lease also gives them the option to terminate it at will. They may pay a penalty for terminating the lease early, but the savings still in the long run of things is tremendous.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And knowing how often state governments change (often with each new administration), moving, shifting, upsizing, downsizing, etc., I should think this would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

For the most part, I think research would show that the buildings the state has been leasing, have been leased by them for quite some time. I seriously doubt they relocate offices that much.
Click to expand...

Large agencies, true. But outlying offices shift a good deal. I worked for one state agency (a departure from my usual private sector sanity) that reorg'd about three times in the three years I was there, and went through differing office spaces. Also saw it when I worked for a private sector company who did a lot of work with various state agencies. The big depts., like corrections or whatnot, who have humongous spaces downtown or wherever, are pretty stable. But smaller and/or outlying ones are the ones I was thinking of. Any time the state doesn't have to own a brick-and-mortar something would be a good deal, I should think.
Click to expand...

The primary reason these small office move so often is because the state cannot do a long term lease. The property owners are always seeking long term leases to make their portfolio look better. When they have a tenant that refuses to sign a long term lease and a new potential tenant comes along offering to sign a 5 or 10 year lease, they are going to take it. It's only smart business to do so.

Add in that these types of commercial properties change owners on a regular basis, their only concern is finding long term tenants because it improves the value of the property before they sell it. If you allow the State to sign a 5 or 10 year lease, these small offices will not be moving as often. The state gets a discount on the rates and saves big money on moving offices and personnel.

And knowing how the State pays their bills (30 to 90 days past due date), most small commercial property owners cannot work this into their budget.
 
Madea said:
Whomever is in charge of ballot wording needs to up their skillz! There isn't enough info to make an intelligent decision and it just sets them up for failure. While it is probably a good idea, my initial thought would be "no" without more information.
Click to expand...

:agreed
 
Winchester said:
And knowing how the State pays their bills (30 to 90 days past due date), most small commercial property owners cannot work this into their budget.
Click to expand...

Excellent purnt.
 
Why question: Why do we need to amend the Constitution to make this happen? Does the current Georgia Constitution make it unlawful for the state to enter into long term leases?

Gotta research this one...
 
It usurps the power from subsequent legislatures by committing the state to an unfunded contract. Each subsequent legislature has it's hands tied. It must fund the lease or negotiate their way out of it.

Winchester, landlords are aware of the fact that the State can only enter into a one year lease, and the fact that in every case office moves and consolidation are manpower and budget decisions. In other words, We will be where we are as long as that office is needed. The State is currently moving out of the Tradeport after being there since the facility was built. They had very favorable terms, the most favorable in the facility, regardless of the one year lease agreement. Had they signed a new ten year agreement say last year, their hand would be tied and they could not consolidate into State owned facilities. It should also be noted that many of the programs requiring satellite state offices are very dependent on Federal funding. If that funding is discontinued or changed, the state could be caught with their pants down. The state should never make 20 year commitments for anything without a bond behind it. There are pluses and minuses to long term state commitments, and this is the down side.

I for one will be voting "NO" because I think it should be illegal for a current legislature to commit future budget dollars to a contract. I feel like the pluses of a few lower cost lease agreements will not balance out the lack of flexibility and the uncertain funding behind leases. I am also one million percent against biennial budgeting. Can you imagine the cluster **** that would be? These morons can't hide money fast enough as it is. Now they want to spend money with only the first year on book and force future legislatures to pay for it. Sweet.

Also, for future reference, if a Constitutional amendment starts "Shall the state be allowed to save money". read "Shall the state be allowed to spend more of your money." You will be right 99 out of 100 times.
 
lotstodo said:
It usurps the power from subsequent legislatures by committing the state to an unfunded contract. Each subsequent legislature has it's hands tied. It must fund the lease or negotiate their way out of it.

Winchester, landlords are aware of the fact that the State can only enter into a one year lease, and the fact that in every case office moves and consolidation are manpower and budget decisions. In other words, We will be where we are as long as that office is needed. The State is currently moving out of the Tradeport after being there since the facility was built. They had very favorable terms, the most favorable in the facility, regardless of the one year lease agreement. Had they signed a new ten year agreement say last year, their hand would be tied and they could not consolidate into State owned facilities. It should also be noted that many of the programs requiring satellite state offices are very dependent on Federal funding. If that funding is discontinued or changed, the state could be caught with their pants down. The state should never make 20 year commitments for anything without a bond behind it. There are pluses and minuses to long term state commitments, and this is the down side.

I for one will be voting "NO" because I think it should be illegal for a current legislature to commit future budget dollars to a contract. I feel like the pluses of a few lower cost lease agreements will not balance out the lack of flexibility and the uncertain funding behind leases. I am also one million percent against biennial budgeting. Can you imagine the cluster **** that would be? These morons can't hide money fast enough as it is. Now they want to spend money with only the first year on book and force future legislatures to pay for it. Sweet.

Also, for future reference, if a Constitutional amendment starts "Shall the state be allowed to save money". read "Shall the state be allowed to spend more of your money." You will be right 99 out of 100 times.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, 10 or 20 year leases would be stupid for just about anybody. I would never recommend anyone to enter into such agreement, especially the property owner. But 3 to 5 year leases can mean anywhere from 10% to 30% discounts on the lease. And that is a lot of savings considering how much space they lease all over the state.

Do I expect the state to refund this savings back to the people? HA! That will never happen to begin with. You can be sure they will spend it on other projects.

Any lease longer the 5 years and you loose the opportunity to take advantage of changing market conditions. But any attorney will tell you that contracts are made to be broken! lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top