Selling California's public property was prevented by Gov. Brown

▲
0
0
▼

Selling California's public property was prevented by Gov. Brown

invite response
2014 Dec 2, 8:44am 4,797 views 14 comments

THIS (the below) is the difference between a Democrat governor and a Republican governor. The Republican wants to sell public property and then lease it back so that the "buyers" will end up owning it at taxpayer expense. The Democrat will say, SWEET SASSIE MOLASSIE, NOT ON MY WATCH!

--------------------------------------------------------------

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) â€” A judge is set to hear arguments in a lawsuit that aims to force California officials to sell 11 state properties to private investors for $2.3 billion and then have the state lease them back.

The sale was championed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as a way to help the state plug a budget deficit. Gov. Jerry Brown pulled the plug on the plan in 2011 after analysts said it would end up costing the state as much as $1.5 billion.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge is scheduled to hear opening statements Tuesday from attorneys for the state Department of General Services, which negotiated the sale, and California First LP, the buyer.

California First says the state has to honor the sales contract. The state says the contract was terminated when California First failed to make a payment on time.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/general-news/20141202/investors-argue-for-23b-california-building-sale

#politics

Comments 1 - 14 of 14 Search these comments

justme 2014 Dec 3, 12:21am

This what Republicans wanted to do: Sell the citizen's property cheaply to the wealthy, and then pay the same wealthy owners rent to keep using the properties. Sale price, 1.2B, rental cost over 35 years, 7.2B (1.2+6).

And what made this whole shenanigan possible? Budget shortfalls caused by not taxing the wealthy enough, combined with a financial bubble and depression that was engineered by the top 1% of Wall St.

Thank God for Democrat Governor Jerry Brown.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article4230516.html

The deal would have infused the state with some quick money, but in the long run would cost about $6 billion more over 35 years than keeping the properties, according to the Legislative Analystâ€™s Office.

HydroCabron 2014 Dec 3, 12:39am

California had no right to sell Cliven Bundy's land in the first place.

justme 2014 Dec 3, 1:04am

HydroCabron says

California had no right to sell Cliven Bundy's land in the first place.

Sarcasm alert for the subtly impaired!

indigenous 2014 Dec 3, 1:09am

Absolutely Calif does not control enough land in the state...

Of course that is the main reason why the cost of land is higher in the first place but we won't talk about that.

HydroCabron 2014 Dec 3, 1:20am

indigenous says

Of course that is the main reason why the cost of land is higher

Nope: the Fed caused that.

However, I will admit that areas like Manhattan Beach, Brentwood, San Marino, Napa, Sausalito and Holmby Hills are indeed reasonably cheap, thanks entirely to the private ownership of the land there.

indigenous 2014 Dec 3, 1:22am

HydroCabron says