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.