Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Leisler
Wow, the state gets 2 plus billion, drops maintenance costs, and gets taxes going forward. A triple.

Uh, no. The article says after the sell, CA will rent the property back. Someone is making a killing and it's not the CA taxpayers. Also, don't you think it is rather interesting that there is not mention of who the buyers might be? Same folks wanting to build a mosque on Ground Zero, hmmm? The ME understands now that crashing planes into buildings was child's play compared to outright buying America. The own our msm, they own our national landmarks, so what's next.

14 posted on 10/12/2010 8:40:47 AM PDT by bgill (K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: bgill
The article says after the sell, CA will rent the property back.

This is not a "bankable" lease in real estate terms.

15 posted on 10/12/2010 8:59:22 AM PDT by jslade (People who are easily offended, OFFEND ME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: bgill

My complaint with this, along with a lot of things govt does, is why didn’t they put out a call for bids? There are a lot of things that govt can sell, but they need to take bids, not result to crony capitalism. Recently they announced that they were working on a non-bid deal to sell Delmar race track...again..no competitive bidding.
When the Govt in Hong Kong or Singapore sells govt property they go out to bid. Why not here? The answer is the govt doesn’t want competitive bids because it cuts off sweet heart deals.


16 posted on 10/12/2010 9:00:01 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson