Makes you wonder why morans keep on getting voted into high offices, do democracies tend to elect idiots?
I think yes, they're the private sector's cronies in most cases. What i'd want to know is if Arizona made any money on that initial $81 mil or if the governor had any financial interests in the firms who made the purchase/sale.
You don't know? democracies tend to elect the people who raises the most campaign funds the largest portion of those funds are provided by companies who usually and most likely would desire a stupid puppet to do as they say- or they're smart with malicious or selfish intentions.
I've read the article a few times and it just is the comedy gift that keeps on giving. You can't make this s*** up.
Stupid? What are you talking about? This is brilliant. It's like legal embezzlement. They just made off with $24 mil LEGALLY and without needing responsibility. Okay, so the corporations get a share, but overall it's a hell of a lot more money than they make from salaries. If I ever hold a job where I can actually get away with this, I'd do it. Let's face it. We don't actually control government corruption. It's just that unlike other countries, our government skim money in a roundabout way rather than directly. But make no mistake. Our public officials are very good at raking in money well beyond what their paycheck look like.
it would be nice to hear a justification of the 30% rise in price over less then 2 yrs. Arizona real estate must be booming. A link other then DailyKos might also have a bit more credibility -- though this type of thing is common enough that I don't doubt the facts are substantially accurate here. I suspect this is more ideological negligence then fraud.
I'm convinced I'm misunderstanding this, because this seems just too far-fetched. They're wasting their budget surplus on a scam?
Yeah, I don't know the particulars of it, especially from a commercial standpoint, but I usually assume after down payment, taxes(?) and insurance that rent > mortgage. Unless they jointly negotiated the rental agreements and sale up front I'm not sure how that could have been different; unless they thought they could get higher cash flows investment the lump sum sale payment than it would cost in rent?
There were some real estate brokers that made some serious cash on the deals. I'm betting they'll be buying the $10,000 a plate dinners at the next govenor fundraiser. It had to have been a friendly inside deal that the inner circle profited from. Other wise, it just makes no sense.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/anXKnXVm-Kc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I read the original article. Thanks. The deal isn't what being represented by DailyKos. Imagine that! It's a budget shuffle -- no more. Which doesn't mean it's a good deal, of course. Essentially.... They mortgaged the properties for $81m two years ago. They didn't sell them. They guaranteed interest for 10 yrs. Now they want to take $105m and put it in an earmarked account to pay the guaranteed interest for those 10 yrs and the mortgage principal. This was their original commitment under the borrowing deal previously made. The lenders are not getting more money then they were originally promised, nor are they getting it sooner. I think its a budget shuffle to charge it in the current period rather then a later one -- draped in the usual community pride/good for us all fluff. But there's no 'windfall' to the investors here beyond whatever rate of return they were originally assured. At least that's how I understand it. Reporting isn't always clear (even before DailyKos ads their spin ). And local and state budgeting is smoke and mirrors at the best of times.
