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

[newsjunky]

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.

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

This amendment allows for up to 10 year commitments. It is not a good thing to amend the Constitution for a purpose like this one.

 

[Winchester]

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.

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

This amendment allows for up to 10 year commitments. It is not a good thing to amend the Constitution for a purpose like this one.

I don't understand why it's in the state constitution anyway. Doesn't make good business sense to me.

But if you have an office that already has a long term history in one location with no plans to move it, a 10 year lease would work fine. But like LTD said, if they are temporary locations it would not be smart. Also depends on how the lease is written. If they include an exit clause then the state may be able to get some good lease deals arraigned.

 

[naturegirl]

OK, after giving this some thought I fear negotiating long term leases with someone's "friend" may actually cost more. Owing commercial property I can see the advantage of having longer term leases, however it also has it's disadvantages to the leasee.

I'm thinking if we need to changed the state constitution to do this, I'm voting no.

Is this a binding question or is it to get an "idea"??

 

[newsjunky]

OK, after giving this some thought I fear negotiating long term leases with someone's "friend" may actually cost more. Owing commercial property I can see the advantage of having longer term leases, however it also has it's disadvantages to the leasee.

I'm thinking if we need to changed the state constitution to do this, I'm voting no.

Is this a binding question or is it to get an "idea"??

Binding!