PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Pelosi Office Rent in SF $18,736 a MONTH


HonestChieffan
06-14-2010, 07:03 PM
The Queen of the Democrat party continues to shine a light on the disregard the democrats have for tax payers, voters, or anyone else who is not in the inner circle. Dems must be so proud.


Pelosi Paying $18K a Month for New San Francisco Office
By Paul Singer
Roll Call Staff
June 14, 2010, 12 a.m.


Last fall, Speaker Nancy Pelosi moved her district office into the new federal building in San Francisco. The move quadrupled the rent she pays, and her new $18,736 monthly bill is almost double the next-highest rental paid by a Member of the House.

A database assembled by the Sunlight Foundation in cooperation with Roll Call provides new insight into Congressional spending on district office rents. Not surprisingly, Members from large urban districts with the highest property values are paying the most for district office rental, particularly New York–area Members.

But even in these high-rent districts, Pelosi’s new digs blow away the competition.

The next highest monthly office rent belongs to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D), who occupies an office in a federal building in Manhattan’s trendy SoHo neighborhood for just under $10,600. Rep. José Serrano (D) paid $10,350 a month last year for an office in the Bronx, but he recently moved into a new building where the first month’s rent was only $9,583, his spokesman said Friday.

Democratic Reps. Doris Matsui (Sacramento), Stephen Lynch (Boston) and Diane Watson (Los Angeles) all pay $9,000 to $10,000 a month for district offices.

Pelosi’s spokesman said the high price of the Speaker’s new office is partly due to her need for additional space — she had been in her prior office for more than 20 years — and new security needs that go along with being the Speaker of the House.

“San Francisco is one of the most densely populated cities in the country and, of course, office space rents are some of the highest, on average, in the country,” said Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s press secretary.

“After being based in the Burton Federal Building for over 20 years, we were no longer able to meet the needs of San Franciscans in the existing space. The new office space is 3,075 square feet, nearly a third larger than the old space, which was of inadequate size. Additionally, the new building is more centrally located, right off of Market Street, which allows for easier access for constituents via public transportation,” Hammill said. Pelosi’s old office was about a half mile away, near San Francisco’s city hall.

Hammill added: “As Speaker, the security needs are different. The new San Francisco Federal Building offers enhanced security features, which were a major factor in the decision to move offices.”

Courtesy General Services Administration

This artist’s rendering depicts the new federal building in San Francisco that now houses the offices of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The building is an award-winning “green” design that saves on energy costs and is centrally located, according to Pelosi’s spokesman.
The new federal building is also an award-winning “green” design, “consuming less than half the power of a standard office tower, saving taxpayer funds on utility costs,” Hammill said.

Clearly, serving as Speaker carries additional costs. In 2006, when Republican Rep. Dennis Hastert was still Speaker of the House, he paid $4,300 a month for a district office in the little northern Illinois town of Dixon, while Republican Rep. Don Manzullo was paying $2,600 for an office in Rockford — a much larger city about 50 miles away and closer to Chicago — and $2,200 for a second office in Crystal Lake, which is essentially a Chicago suburb. Manzullo has since moved to a smaller, cheaper office in Crystal Lake. Hastert’s two other district offices, combined, cost less than $1,000 a month.

House Members’ district office rent is paid out of their official office accounts, called the Members’ Representational Allowances. Each Member operates under an allowance based on a formula that takes into account the distance of the district from Washington, D.C., and real estate values in the district.

When Members have their offices in federal buildings, as Pelosi does, the payments are made to the General Services Administration, which is the government’s property manager.

Outside of the nation’s big cities, some Members of Congress spend less for office rent than some Congressional interns pay to live in D.C.-area group houses.

Rep. Heath Shuler appears to be paying the lowest rent in Congress: $400 per month to Buncombe County for an office in Asheville, N.C.

The Democrat also has two other district offices, but House disbursement records indicate no payment for either of them.

Under House rules, a Member may accept free rent from a state, local or federal government entity, which appears to be the case for at least one of Shuler’s locations.

Shuler’s office did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.) pays only $1,353 a month for an office owned by the University of Central Florida in Orlando and another $100 for a small office provided by the City of Port Orange.

Democratic Rep. Mark Schauer pays $1,500 for his office in the center of his district along Michigan’s southern border.

Both Schauer and Kosmas occupy space that was previously used by their predecessors in the House.

The Senate’s semiannual financial disclosure reports do not list the rental costs for Senators’ district offices.

vailpass
06-14-2010, 07:05 PM
"the new building is more centrally located, right off of Market Street, which allows for easier access for constituents via public transportation"

They really think we're stupid don't they? She has this outrageously expensive office so the people can ride a bus and come see her every day. Fugging incredible.

DaneMcCloud
06-14-2010, 07:09 PM
I'm not surprised. San Fran real estate prices are absolutely insane.

I do question the need to be in San Francisco. Why not move her offices to Los Angeles, Santa Barbara or even San Diego, which are far more affordable cities in terms of real estate rentals?

vailpass
06-14-2010, 07:14 PM
I'm not surprised. San Fran real estate prices are absolutely insane.

I do question the need to be in San Francisco. Why not move her offices to Los Angeles, Santa Barbara or even San Diego, which are far more affordable cities in terms of real estate rentals?

Yeah my brother used to have an office on Geary (sp?) street. Not cheap. But does she need to be right on frigging Market Street?

JonesCrusher
06-14-2010, 07:15 PM
I'm not surprised. San Fran real estate prices are absolutely insane.

I do question the need to be in San Francisco. Why not move her offices to Los Angeles, Santa Barbara or even San Diego, which are far more affordable cities in terms of real estate rentals?

I wonder? Maybe because they are not in her district.

dirk digler
06-14-2010, 07:18 PM
I stayed 1 block away from that building when I went to a conference last year. I will say that that neighborhood is pretty much a shit hole and there was drug dealers, homeless people and just a bunch of shady people at all hours in that neighborhood.

alpha_omega
06-14-2010, 07:25 PM
Interesting...

I would like to see a total cost comparison, not just the rent.

orange
06-14-2010, 07:26 PM
The Queen of the Democrat party continues to shine a light on the disregard the democrats have for tax payers, voters, or anyone else who is not in the inner circle. Dems must be so proud.

:cuss:

Last fall, Speaker Nancy Pelosi moved her district office into the new federal building in San Francisco.

...

When Members have their offices in federal buildings, as Pelosi does, the payments are made to the General Services Administration, which is the government’s property manager.

Oh. It's just another HCF post about nothing. :doh!:

ROFL

AndChiefs
06-14-2010, 07:31 PM
:cuss:



Oh. It's just another HCF post about nothing. :doh!:

ROFL

So the government is ripping off itself. That takes talent.

HonestChieffan
06-14-2010, 10:10 PM
18 Grand a month is nothing to Obots like Orange. Mindless followers.

Amnorix
06-15-2010, 08:50 AM
When Members have their offices in federal buildings, as Pelosi does, the payments are made to the General Services Administration, which is the government’s property manager.

So the rent the Federal Government is paying to itself is outrageous? That's what this article is about? OMFG!!!! Stop the presses!!!!!!1

JonesCrusher
06-15-2010, 09:04 AM
So the rent the Federal Government is paying to itself is outrageous? That's what this article is about? OMFG!!!! Stop the presses!!!!!!1

BS Someone else could have rented it and the fed could have made the income, instead of just giving it away for free.

It's not a very difficult concept.

HonestChieffan
06-15-2010, 09:47 AM
BS Someone else could have rented it and the fed could have made the income, instead of just giving it away for free.

It's not a very difficult concept.


Dont even try to explain that. Far over the heads of the Obot. Much less explain why the damn government needs such a high end building in the highest priced place the could build it.

RaiderH8r
06-15-2010, 09:58 AM
She moved into a fancy building on a fancy street with a fancy office at a quadrupling her previous cost because she is Fancy Nancy and anything less would be uncivilized. Nothing says representative of the people like paying $18K+ during a recession and 9-10% unemployment.

All other BS aside, this move was about Nancy's ongoing self-aggrandizement at the expense of the taxpayer. Blah blah, it goes to GSA. Not the point. The point is she deems herself worthy of occupying an office space worth $18K/month. This is just like her special airplane treatment when she first became Speaker. Anybody else remember that little embroglio?

FD
06-15-2010, 10:00 AM
BS Someone else could have rented it and the fed could have made the income, instead of just giving it away for free.

It's not a very difficult concept.

She has a huge fancy office in the Capitol building, too. I don't see why don't they just rent it out and keep the income? Who does she think she is?

petegz28
06-15-2010, 10:02 AM
I get a bit weary of hearing how "security needs" seem to be used to justify excessive spending for Congress. She is #3 in line. Not #1 or #2. And if something happened to her she is easily replaced. She isn't the President or the VP. It isn't like the People elected her to be #3, per se. She is in that position simply due to the current make up of Congress and for no other reason. This goes for any Speaker. You aren't THAT important, no matter how much you try to convince everyone you are. The fact is there are several hundred in Congress that could easily replace you on a moment's notice.

Amnorix
06-15-2010, 10:03 AM
BS Someone else could have rented it and the fed could have made the income, instead of just giving it away for free.

It's not a very difficult concept.

AFAIK the Feds aren't in the business of renting out their new properties, really. They just assigned a fair market value to the space Pelosi took out, and the rest is internal bookkeeping. You think a 7-11 would've been in there if it wasn't Pelosi?

petegz28
06-15-2010, 10:06 AM
She has a huge fancy office in the Capitol building, too. I don't see why don't they just rent it out and keep the income? Who does she think she is?

Considering the fact that this is the woman who threw a temper tantrum over non-stop flights from D.C. to S.F., one would think she should have a nice office in one or the other. The majority of her time is spent in D.C. So she should get one of the nicer offices as Speaker, in D.C. There is no reason for her to have a palace in D.C and a "Forbidden Palace" in S.F.

The country is going to shit economically and her increased spending provides literally 0 value to the tax payer.

petegz28
06-15-2010, 10:07 AM
So the question that begs to be asked of Queen Nan-Nan is, if for some reason she was no longer Speaker after the next election, is she going to give up the bigger office? Methinks not.

Donger
06-15-2010, 10:30 AM
:cuss:



Oh. It's just another HCF post about nothing. :doh!:

ROFL

I don't follow you. Unless Nancy is paying the rent out of her own pocket, the taxpayers are paying this rent, no?

orange
06-15-2010, 10:40 AM
I don't follow you. Unless Nancy is paying the rent out of her own pocket, the taxpayers are paying this rent, no?

Paying it to ourselves. We're also the landlords collecting the rent.

We're moving it from our left pocket to our right pocket.

mlyonsd
06-15-2010, 10:41 AM
So when she gets knocked out of the leadership position will she be forced back into the dump she previously had?

Better yet, why doesn't she find something cheaper in Oakland. She belongs there anyway.

Donger
06-15-2010, 10:43 AM
Paying it to ourselves. We're also the landlords collecting the rent.

We're moving it from our left pocket to our right pocket.

And I'm sure that the federal government is not spending it (and more) again.

Oh, wait.

mlyonsd
06-15-2010, 10:43 AM
Paying it to ourselves. We're also the landlords collecting the rent.

We're moving it from our left pocket to our right pocket.

Then why charge for rent at all? Or why not make it a buck?

orange
06-15-2010, 10:51 AM
Then why charge for rent at all? Or why not make it a buck?

For the same reason you would transfer money from a savings account to a checking account.

RaiderH8r
06-15-2010, 10:52 AM
Paying it to ourselves. We're also the landlords collecting the rent.

We're moving it from our left pocket to our right pocket.

But it is taking away the opportunity to put new capital into both pockets. Apparently Nancy is only supportive of generating capital via taxes and Chinese loans.

HonestChieffan
06-15-2010, 10:56 AM
The idea of "too high". or "save" is incomprehensible to Orange

RaiderH8r
06-15-2010, 10:57 AM
And clearly she has way too much f'ing money to spend for her Congressional budget. I suspect that all Members have the same. Somehow this union functioned before 3 day work weeks and returning to the district every weekend.

You want Congress to work? Start with eliminating air conditioning in the Capitol and office buildings, that'll get these pricks out of town for longer periods of time. They can't mess anything up then. When they are here make them eliminate the weekend district time. This town functioned more amicably when these guys were forced to stay here. They spent weekends together, had standing poker games, family outings etc. It becomes a lot harder to shit on somebody if you know their wives, their kids, understand their parent is gravely ill. Frankly, make these guys go back to being friends with philosophical disagreements.

orange
06-15-2010, 10:57 AM
But it is taking away the opportunity to put new capital into both pockets.

Nonsense. Nothing goes into a federal building except government offices. If it wasn't Pelosi, it would be some other govt. agency using that space. The building is going to cost the same either way.

RaiderH8r
06-15-2010, 10:59 AM
Nonsense. Nothing goes into a federal building except government offices. If it wasn't Pelosi, it would be some other govt. agency using that space. The building is going to cost the same either way.

Then the federal gov't has no business occupying such a lucrative property.

mlyonsd
06-15-2010, 11:05 AM
Nonsense. Nothing goes into a federal building except government offices. If it wasn't Pelosi, it would be some other govt. agency using that space. The building is going to cost the same either way.
For Rent, Cheap: Federal Office Space

Looking to raise revenue, federal building managers are reaching out to business tenants.


By Richard Sammon

April 14, 2010

There’s a new player stepping into the already depressed commercial real estate market -- Uncle Sam.

Ordered by the Obama administration to find revenue to help cut the deficit, dozens of federal agencies are looking to be landlords and will start leasing space in unused parts of federal buildings across the country.

Federal building leasing has been going on for a long time, but not on this scale. Nearly 400 federal buildings already rent space to private businesses, including restaurants, banks, hair salons, newsstands, even local movie theaters and farmers’ markets. The White House’s goal is to have space available to lease to businesses in 1,000 federal buildings by 2013.

The General Services Administration (http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/home.do?tabId=1), which manages more than 4,300 federal buildings, is poring over its real estate portfolio for leasing opportunities in federally run office parks, depots, storage warehouses and lab facilities, among others.

The military, too, is reviewing 370 buildings and storage places for potential private leasing deals, including at military facilities in Los Angeles, San Diego, Newport News, Va., St. Louis, Groton, Conn., and Philadelphia.

Federal leases are often bargains for renters, with the government more eager to find tenants for empty space than to get top dollar.

Federally owned office space in Louisville, Ky., for instance, was rented last year for half of what was being charged tenants in nearby privately operated office buildings.

Pending deals. A Department of Housing and Urban Development annex in Worcester, Mass., will soon be up for rent after 90 employees are relocated to Boston. A four-story Bureau of Land Management complex in Sioux Falls, S.D., that can house 200 employees also will soon be on the block.

More than 400,000 square feet of NASA office space is expected to be rented to business developers in Cape Canaveral, Fla., later this year. And 300,000 square feet of NASA office space in Houston will be designated for lease. Unused office space operated by the U.S. Mint in Denver and San Francisco is likely to be turned into rental properties, too.

The commercial real estate lobby is up in arms about added competition from the federal government, but there is little it can do. Though the government is renting, it’s not everywhere. Federal office renting will likely occur with little public notice, and Congress isn’t going to pick a fight with the administration over renting vacant office space. Actually, it’s more likely that lawmakers will aim to increase federal building space available for rent beyond the 1,000 buildings to 1,500 or so in the next decade. Congressional hearings on federal building leasing deals are planned this summer.

http://www.kiplinger.com/printstory.php?pid=19670

HonestChieffan
06-15-2010, 11:10 AM
Mr Orange runs to Obamaluv.gov for new spin

orange
06-15-2010, 11:17 AM
Why would I bother? None of those mentioned in mlyonsd's article are federal buildings.



"in federally run office parks, depots, storage warehouses and lab facilities, among others.

The military, too, is reviewing 370 buildings and storage places for potential private leasing deals, including at military facilities"


Want to bet that the new, expanded listings will include prime city-center office space?

DaneMcCloud
06-15-2010, 11:19 AM
I wonder? Maybe because they are not in her district.

I just checked and her district is pretty small, mostly the San Fran area.

But she could lease less expensive offices in Daly city, as opposed to downtown.

banyon
06-15-2010, 11:26 AM
Then why charge for rent at all? Or why not make it a buck?

Accounting?

banyon
06-15-2010, 11:28 AM
Mr Orange runs to Obamaluv.gov for new spin

Whatever, you got clowned in this thread, and didn't own up to it as usual.

Why didn't you reply to the part about us paying it to ourselves? Not convenient enough to the partisan narrative?

orange
06-15-2010, 11:29 AM
I just checked and her district is pretty small, mostly the San Fran area.

But she could lease less expensive offices in Daly city, as opposed to downtown.

Why would - or should - she put her District Office in Speier's District? Don't San Franciscans have the right to visit their Representative in their own District?

Dave Lane
06-15-2010, 11:33 AM
I just checked and her district is pretty small, mostly the San Fran area.

But she could lease less expensive offices in Daly city, as opposed to downtown.

She's not renting. She is saving the taxpayers money by moving into a federal building. The government is writing a check to the government for the space. The Feds own the building. In reality the rent is the cost of any electricity she uses, that's the actual incremental cost to the government.

HonestChieffan
06-15-2010, 12:10 PM
Whatever, you got clowned in this thread, and didn't own up to it as usual.

Why didn't you reply to the part about us paying it to ourselves? Not convenient enough to the partisan narrative?


Once again, the ideas of real commerce escape you. The cultural bias that comes with being employed in government seems to eliminate the ideas of productive enterprise.

Rather than wonder about the narrative and then mount a personal attack that you always bear, did you consider any other alternatives?

Why did she leave a lower rent location to move to this one at huge expense to the taxpayer?

What other alternatives would have shown better judgement and respect for the taxpayers money?

Why did the federal government build such a high cost building in such a difficult place to serve the public?

Did she consider the relative cost of her office compared to peers?

There is a thing we used to use in industry called the "red faced test". Before incurring an expense asking oneself if its really necessary, is it defendable, is it necessary, can it be delayed, can it be done at a lower cost, and other common sense questions need to be considered.

In government those things seem to be irrelevant. Pelosi as speaker should set a standard that others can emulate rather than bestow upon herself these wasteful expressions of her power.

The fact you pay it to "yourself" is absurd since the real issue is the expense itself. The fact the government had unused space that has a cost this high is unpardonable. The fact she took it is a second error.

Government and the costs of government are out of control. The next time you offer some wisdom on why industry needs limits and regulations, apply it to government. Clearly they have a need far higher since no one benefits from these spending levels and they seem incapable of using judgement.


Now go back to you cubicle and have a nice afternoon.

vailpass
06-15-2010, 12:23 PM
LOL at the Pelosi defenders. Between Pelosi, obama, and Reid you guys do an admirable job of not hiding your faces in shame.

banyon
06-15-2010, 02:06 PM
Once again, the ideas of real commerce escape you. The cultural bias that comes with being employed in government seems to eliminate the ideas of productive enterprise.

Rather than wonder about the narrative and then mount a personal attack that you always bear, did you consider any other alternatives?

Why did she leave a lower rent location to move to this one at huge expense to the taxpayer?

What other alternatives would have shown better judgement and respect for the taxpayers money?

Why did the federal government build such a high cost building in such a difficult place to serve the public?

Did she consider the relative cost of her office compared to peers?

There is a thing we used to use in industry called the "red faced test". Before incurring an expense asking oneself if its really necessary, is it defendable, is it necessary, can it be delayed, can it be done at a lower cost, and other common sense questions need to be considered.

In government those things seem to be irrelevant. Pelosi as speaker should set a standard that others can emulate rather than bestow upon herself these wasteful expressions of her power.

The fact you pay it to "yourself" is absurd since the real issue is the expense itself. The fact the government had unused space that has a cost this high is unpardonable. The fact she took it is a second error.

Government and the costs of government are out of control. The next time you offer some wisdom on why industry needs limits and regulations, apply it to government. Clearly they have a need far higher since no one benefits from these spending levels and they seem incapable of using judgement.


Now go back to you cubicle and have a nice afternoon.

What part of basic math is so difficult for you to grasp?

Taxpayer Funding for pelosi's old (private) office space = $3x dollars paid to private landlord

Taxpayer Funding for pelosi's new (public) office space = $10x dollars paid to Federal government - tax revenues taken in by us for said payment (-$10x)= ZERO DOLLARS

It's rare to see such unwavering incompetence in the face of what should be third to fourth grade math word problems.

[also, let's not forget, your original point was about PELOSI's extravagances. Now that you've miserably lost that argument, you want to shift it to some broader "OH banyon, you doofus, I was talking about general commerce principles and whether the buidling should have been built in the first place" when of course that wasn't in the thread at all until now. Dishonest +1, can't you even keep track within a thread of what you argued?]

HonestChieffan
06-15-2010, 02:12 PM
Real world we have a balance sheet. In your world its all monopoly money. Its almost sad how government has grown and with it the total lack of understanding of who creates the money, how it is shared and what the responsibility is within government to respect the money they are supplied by tax payers.

Pride in doing a job well left long ago, now we have no pride in being frugal and wise spending someone else's money.


That is the very reason we need limits on government either through electoral process or through statute. Banyon, leave the math and difficult issues to those who have an aptitude for it

banyon
06-15-2010, 02:12 PM
LOL at the Pelosi defenders. Between Pelosi, obama, and Reid you guys do an admirable job of not hiding your faces in shame.

I've wanted Pelosi out since 2006, but when someone brings up a stupid point, then I'm not going to duck my head in the ground and pretend it was some brilliant criticism.

Dave Lane
06-15-2010, 02:13 PM
I just want to know how suddenly HCF learned multi-syllable words. Where did he cut an paste that response from? It almost seemed like it came from someone with an education. That's against everything he stands for.

banyon
06-15-2010, 02:25 PM
Real world we have a balance sheet. In your world its all monopoly money. Its almost sad how government has grown and with it the total lack of understanding of who creates the money, how it is shared and what the responsibility is within government to respect the money they are supplied by tax payers.

Pride in doing a job well left long ago, now we have no pride in being frugal and wise spending someone else's money.


That is the very reason we need limits on government either through electoral process or through statute. Banyon, leave the math and difficult issues to those who have an aptitude for it

So, let me get this straight. Under the HonestChieffan expert accounting/business model, if you have two choices:

1) Pay for your daughter to rent an apartment for college at $575 a month

or

2) Pay for your daughter to rent an apartment for college at $750 a month and then get reimbursed for it by a scholarship grant for $750 a month


Then the expert HonestChieffan business/accounting model says pick option 1, and if you don't pick option 1, then "U ur dumb".

Do I have it right, "honest"?

HonestChieffan
06-15-2010, 02:27 PM
I just want to know how suddenly HCF learned multi-syllable words. Where did he cut an paste that response from? It almost seemed like it came from someone with an education. That's against everything he stands for.


I'll work on it. Polysyllabic vocabularies are a vexation to the monosyllabic mind as we see with Mr. Banyon.


He would do far better if we used animal crackers and when a dollar is gone we eat the little crackers. So in the end, he would see we have no more crackers.

RaiderH8r
06-15-2010, 02:33 PM
So, let me get this straight. Under the HonestChieffan expert accounting/business model, if you have two choices:

1) Pay for your daughter to rent an apartment for college at $575 a month

or

2) Pay for your daughter to rent an apartment for college at $750 a month and then get reimbursed for it by a scholarship grant for $750 a month


Then the expert HonestChieffan business/accounting model says pick option 1, and if you don't pick option 1, then "U ur dumb".

Do I have it right, "honest"?

No, you pick option 1 and use the difference to pay down other debts.

banyon
06-15-2010, 02:38 PM
No, you pick option 1 and use the difference to pay down other debts.

The difference? The difference is you are out $575 and you have more debt, not less.

How can people not understand this?

RaiderH8r
06-15-2010, 02:41 PM
The difference? The difference is you are out $575 and you have more debt, not less.

How can people not understand this?

Don't blame me for your shitty metaphor.

banyon
06-15-2010, 02:43 PM
Don't blame me for your shitty metaphor.

What's defective about it?

They both deal with net inflows and outflows of money. I don't see what the disanalogy is.

HonestChieffan
06-15-2010, 02:48 PM
No, Banyon, you never are limited to two choices when you are making a decision. There are some options that are just nonsense and can be discarded. But as one makes an economic decision, you have a world of options to kick from, some even can be combinations of options.

For example, a Senator need not have a stand alone office. He or she can combine offices with House members for example and perhaps reduce costs and split it against two budgets.

How you choose to house your daughter in college is really a personal decision and should involve her, asking what portion she may be responsible for, asking yourself is she responsible enough to go apartment or should she be in a dorm, is she a sorority member and what bearing does that have, but the single overriding issue will be what can you afford.

And therein lies the lesson for you. You see, you will make a decision. Do you do what is economically sound?

Or will you go into debt? Or make her borrow so she goes into debt?

Or will you work out an arrangement with daughters help?

Or will you allow her to go into debt through loans and allocate the money to housing?


If this were a government decision, the cost would be irrelevant. Since it is not a government decision you have to work through it on your own. I wish you well. Its a bitch. Sort of like when the shit hits the fan, it will be a bitch to say no to government and slap controls on to save us long term. Your daughter will be better for it if you are clear firm and well prepared. So will the country.

banyon
06-15-2010, 02:58 PM
No, Banyon, you never are limited to two choices when you are making a decision. There are some options that are just nonsense and can be discarded. But as one makes an economic decision, you have a world of options to kick from, some even can be combinations of options.

For example, a Senator need not have a stand alone office. He or she can combine offices with House members for example and perhaps reduce costs and split it against two budgets.

How you choose to house your daughter in college is really a personal decision and should involve her, asking what portion she may be responsible for, asking yourself is she responsible enough to go apartment or should she be in a dorm, is she a sorority member and what bearing does that have, but the single overriding issue will be what can you afford.

And therein lies the lesson for you. You see, you will make a decision. Do you do what is economically sound?


Or will you go into debt? Or make her borrow so she goes into debt?

Or will you work out an arrangement with daughters help?

Or will you allow her to go into debt through loans and allocate the money to housing?


If this were a government decision, the cost would be irrelevant. Since it is not a government decision you have to work through it on your own. I wish you well. Its a bitch. Sort of like when the shit hits the fan, it will be a bitch to say no to government and slap controls on to save us long term. Your daughter will be better for it if you are clear firm and well prepared. So will the country.


Well that's lovely, but it wasn't YOUR CRITICISM IN THIS THREAD. It isn't WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING. YOU (not me) stated that Pelosi was to blame because she (wait for it) CHANGED OFFICES! So, the comparison, while not a necessary set of choices was necessary with respect to YOUR CRITICISM IN THIS THREAD. Oh, but er, "Honest" Chieffan dur forgot. Now, it's time to act nuanced and act like there was a lot more subtlety to the points he had (and hadn't raised).

I've criticized Pelosi's excesses in office, but this one was an ill conceived attempt, that you are flailing about trying to move the goalposts on now.

RaiderH8r
06-15-2010, 03:03 PM
What's defective about it?

They both deal with net inflows and outflows of money. I don't see what the disanalogy is.

A more adequate analogy is that if you have budgeted $750/month in housing and can instead spend $575/month you could apply the difference elsewhere in the budget.

Or, more to the point, if you own a property that you can rent to someone else for $750/month and you can rent a property for your living purposes at $575/month it would be stupid not to rent your owned property and rent a cheaper property for yourself and keep the difference for other purposes. Additionally you get to take the depreciation on your rental property and claim your current rental residence as part of a small business expense since you're running your rental operation from home. So you can turn that $175 difference into $300/month difference in pretty short order while still getting the benefit of equity and not being a grandiose, self absorbed ghunt who thinks she is entitled to an office space worth $18K+/month plus a personal jet at someone else's expense.

This is why the left fails economics.

And even more to the point; WTF is the gov't doing buying up and taking off the market such a valuable piece of property?

dirk digler
06-15-2010, 03:24 PM
The difference? The difference is you are out $575 and you have more debt, not less.

How can people not understand this?

Yeah I don't understand either. It would be like a college kid getting a full ride scholarship to play football but decides he would rather pay for college himself.

banyon
06-15-2010, 03:46 PM
A more adequate analogy is that if you have budgeted $750/month in housing and can instead spend $575/month you could apply the difference elsewhere in the budget.

There's no evidence that this is the case, so no, it's not a better analogy.

Or, more to the point, if you own a property that you can rent to someone else for $750/month and you can rent a property for your living purposes at $575/month it would be stupid not to rent your owned property and rent a cheaper property for yourself and keep the difference for other purposes.


Let's see (your altered analogy):

Property A (rent to other) +$750 income & Property B (rent for own purposes) -$575 = Net + $175 income

Except that there is no evidence others were willing to pay more than Pelosi's other offices would cost. Also, why didn't you factor in the long-term value of owning vs. renting (i.e., not having to pay rent anymore at some point).

Also, this is a FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING. Is it really your contention that the Federal Government should behave like a real estate speculator and ONLY rent federal lands to private individuals and if they don't in every case, then they are stupid?


Additionally you get to take the depreciation on your rental property and claim your current rental residence as part of a small business expense since you're running your rental operation from home. So you can turn that $175 difference into $300/month difference in pretty short order while still getting the benefit of equity and not being a grandiose, self absorbed ghunt who thinks she is entitled to an office space worth $18K+/month plus a personal jet at someone else's expense.

Er, the government doesn't get to take these deductions against itself, so this portion could not be more disanalogous if it tried.

This is why the left fails economics.

And even more to the point; WTF is the gov't doing buying up and taking off the market such a valuable piece of property?

I don't know, but it wasn't discussed up until the point I started disagreeing with HCF and wasn't discussed in the opening post.

This is why the right fails reading comprehension.

Otter
06-15-2010, 03:48 PM
California is such a cool state. Can't we just get all the illegals and politicians, throw them in the ocean and start over?

I'm willing to hang Pelosi up by her feet and have the kids beat her with wiffle ball bats until candy comes out.

Bill Parcells
06-15-2010, 03:54 PM
She's not renting. She is saving the taxpayers money by moving into a federal building. The government is writing a check to the government for the space. The Feds own the building. In reality the rent is the cost of any electricity she uses, that's the actual incremental cost to the government.

You just made a post in the lounge about how awful DC has become. and you come running in hear to defend Pelosi? ROTFLMFAO! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

ROFL

RaiderH8r
06-15-2010, 03:54 PM
There's no evidence that this is the case, so no, it's not a better analogy.




Let's see (your altered analogy):

Property A (rent to other) +$750 income & Property B (rent for own purposes) -$575 = Net + $175 income

Except that there is no evidence others were willing to pay more than Pelosi's other offices would cost. Also, why didn't you factor in the long-term value of owning vs. renting (i.e., not having to pay rent anymore at some point).

Also, this is a FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING. Is it really your contention that the Federal Government should behave like a real estate speculator and ONLY rent federal lands to private individuals and if they don't in every case, then they are stupid?




Er, the government doesn't get to take these deductions against itself, so this portion could not be more disanalogous if it tried.



I don't know, but it wasn't discussed up until the point I started disagreeing with HCF and wasn't discussed in the opening post.

This is why the right fails reading comprehension.

My fundamental point is that:

1. No Member of Congress needs to spend $18K/month in rent.

2. the gov't shouldn't own the damn property in the first place. It could and would be put to better use in private hands. You know, paying taxes, generating revenue and shit like that.

3. If the gov't owns that type of property they should be forced to sell it. Property of that value should be put to production not "taking money from the left hand and putting it in the right hand then reaching around for a circle jerk". That property represents too great an asset to be spent dicking about as a gov't building.

4. The whole depreciation bit was a bit to illustrate how gov't owning property of that sort just doesn't do dick to generate revenue. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a single instance where gov't creates wealth instead of sucking it out of one's pocket to place in another. Their whole damn existence is taking money from one hand and putting it another.

banyon
06-15-2010, 04:12 PM
My fundamental point is that:

1. No Member of Congress needs to spend $18K/month in rent.

Were paying it to ourselves, and weren't previously, see above thread.

2. the gov't shouldn't own the damn property in the first place. It could and would be put to better use in private hands. You know, paying taxes, generating revenue and shit like that.

3. If the gov't owns that type of property they should be forced to sell it. Property of that value should be put to production not "taking money from the left hand and putting it in the right hand then reaching around for a circle jerk". That property represents too great an asset to be spent dicking about as a gov't building.

So, the Government should not have any buildings or property?

4. The whole depreciation bit was a bit to illustrate how gov't owning property of that sort just doesn't do dick to generate revenue. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a single instance where gov't creates wealth instead of sucking it out of one's pocket to place in another. Their whole damn existence is taking money from one hand and putting it another.

right, well I already explained why it doesn't work in the situation we have here. The purpose of government isn't "to create wealth". Would you want to live in a society where that was the function of government? How would it work? I would imaging it would be a lot closer to Mexico than what we have.

RaiderH8r
06-15-2010, 04:20 PM
Were paying it to ourselves, and weren't previously, see above thread.



So, the Government should not have any buildings or property?



right, well I already explained why it doesn't work in the situation we have here. The purpose of government isn't "to create wealth". Would you want to live in a society where that was the function of government? How would it work? I would imaging it would be a lot closer to Mexico than what we have.

Precisely, they should work harder to lower their burden on the population and work a little less on buying up primo properties.

Of course gov't needs a place to work but they don't need the Guilded Lilly Towers on the corner of Boardwalk and Parkplace just because they're playing with other people's f'ing money.

They owe it to the citizens to show as much regard for spending it as the people did who earned it in the first place. $18K+/month is complete disregard and to tell me "we're paying it to ourselves" is bullshit. Don't piss on my head and tell me its raining.

HonestChieffan
06-15-2010, 04:22 PM
Well that's lovely, but it wasn't YOUR CRITICISM IN THIS THREAD. It isn't WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING. YOU (not me) stated that Pelosi was to blame because she (wait for it) CHANGED OFFICES! So, the comparison, while not a necessary set of choices was necessary with respect to YOUR CRITICISM IN THIS THREAD. Oh, but er, "Honest" Chieffan dur forgot. Now, it's time to act nuanced and act like there was a lot more subtlety to the points he had (and hadn't raised).

I've criticized Pelosi's excesses in office, but this one was an ill conceived attempt, that you are flailing about trying to move the goalposts on now.


Ranting is good for the soul but you rase it to an art form. It is like watching an Acid flashback.

dirk digler
06-15-2010, 04:38 PM
Precisely, they should work harder to lower their burden on the population and work a little less on buying up primo properties.

Of course gov't needs a place to work but they don't need the Guilded Lilly Towers on the corner of Boardwalk and Parkplace just because they're playing with other people's f'ing money.

They owe it to the citizens to show as much regard for spending it as the people did who earned it in the first place. $18K+/month is complete disregard and to tell me "we're paying it to ourselves" is bullshit. Don't piss on my head and tell me its raining.

Just looking at the cost of leasing a big enough space to hold 1500 employees in San Francisco it is alot cheaper to buy and build than to lease I believe.

For example this company is asking $1.3 million dollars to rent a 7000 square foot building in San Francisco. Compare that to the federal building which is 605,000 square feet and has to hold 1500 employees.

I suck at math so I will let others do it but the cost to build the federal building was $144 million.

banyon
06-15-2010, 04:40 PM
Ranting is good for the soul but you rase it to an art form. It is like watching an Acid flashback.

Well, you didn't comprehend or read what I wrote the first few times, so I thought the caps might help you. Obviously you're not going to offer an honest reply, no matter how plainly it is put to you.

banyon
06-15-2010, 04:42 PM
Precisely, they should work harder to lower their burden on the population and work a little less on buying up primo properties.

Of course gov't needs a place to work but they don't need the Guilded Lilly Towers on the corner of Boardwalk and Parkplace just because they're playing with other people's f'ing money.

They owe it to the citizens to show as much regard for spending it as the people did who earned it in the first place. $18K+/month is complete disregard and to tell me "we're paying it to ourselves" is bullshit. Don't piss on my head and tell me its raining.

That's a fine criticism but, if you guys go back and re-read the thread, you've moved the goalposts from "Damn Pelosi, that b*tch is spending even more of our money" (which isn't true in this limited instance) to "Damn, this building shore is expensive", which no cost for or comparison to alternative structures has been provided as of yet in this thread.

HonestChieffan
06-15-2010, 04:46 PM
so its not true she's spending 18 grand a month...or the 18 grand isn't our money? Sport, the goalposts did not move. You just brought a football to a baseball game.

Concepts that require multiple levels of analysis seem to baffle you. Did you take algebra? Ever solve for two unknowns?

banyon
06-15-2010, 04:55 PM
so its not true she's spending 18 grand a month...or the 18 grand isn't our money? Sport, the goalposts did not move. You just brought a football to a baseball game.

Concepts that require multiple levels of analysis seem to baffle you. Did you take algebra? Ever solve for two unknowns?

What "multiple levels of analysis"? What computations are you adding, or did you just make that up to make a smarmy comment? No need to answer that, as it's obvious.

it's a pretty simple equation, for people who aren't being intentionally obtuse and deceptive:

TAXES PAID OUT FOR PELOSI'S OFFICE = "-$18 grand"

TAX REVENUES TAKEN IN FROM LEASE PAYMENT TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT = "+18 grand"

_________________

(NET INCOME/LOSS TO IRS) = ZERO $$$$

Now what "levels of analysis" did you propose to add to that equation that were brought up before I (and orange) originally pointed out the silliness of your complaint?

RJ
06-15-2010, 05:25 PM
My wife's employer moved a lot of their offices from San Francisco to Albuquerque. It's quite a savings, SF is a crazy expensive city. Maybe Pelosi should consider moving her offices here as well.

mlyonsd
06-15-2010, 05:26 PM
What "multiple levels of analysis"? What computations are you adding, or did you just make that up to make a smarmy comment? No need to answer that, as it's obvious.

it's a pretty simple equation, for people who aren't being intentionally obtuse and deceptive:

TAXES PAID OUT FOR PELOSI'S OFFICE = "-$18 grand"

TAX REVENUES TAKEN IN FROM LEASE PAYMENT TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT = "+18 grand"

_________________

(NET INCOME/LOSS TO IRS) = ZERO $$$$

Now what "levels of analysis" did you propose to add to that equation that were brought up before I (and orange) originally pointed out the silliness of your complaint?

So you're saying that 18k isn't collected in any way by tax?

HonestChieffan
06-15-2010, 05:27 PM
So you're saying that 18k isn't collected in any way by tax?

He has no idea what he is saying. Its just random outbursts.

banyon
06-15-2010, 05:49 PM
So you're saying that 18k isn't collected in any way by tax?

Yes, there's no need for it. Given the set of data I just presented, at least with respect to Pelosi's rental only, there is no need to collect tax revenues on a net zero expense.

banyon
06-15-2010, 05:49 PM
He has no idea what he is saying. Its just random outbursts.

Yeah, you're a regular model of logical integrity in this thread. Should I add up all of the questions you avoided and attempts to change the subject you've made?

orange
06-15-2010, 06:18 PM
A more adequate analogy is that if you have budgeted $750/month in housing and can instead spend $575/month you could apply the difference elsewhere in the budget.

Or, more to the point, if you own a property that you can rent to someone else for $750/month and you can rent a property for your living purposes at $575/month it would be stupid not to rent your owned property and rent a cheaper property for yourself and keep the difference for other purposes. Additionally you get to take the depreciation on your rental property and claim your current rental residence as part of a small business expense since you're running your rental operation from home. So you can turn that $175 difference into $300/month difference in pretty short order while still getting the benefit of equity and not being a grandiose, self absorbed ghunt who thinks she is entitled to an office space worth $18K+/month plus a personal jet at someone else's expense.

This is why the left fails economics.

And even more to the point; WTF is the gov't doing buying up and taking off the market such a valuable piece of property?

You drive this car, don't you?

http://theweeklydriver.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/whitenano.jpg

If not, you're full of it.

Rain Man
06-15-2010, 08:48 PM
It's a bit expensive, but to be honest I'm surprised that the office itself isn't bigger. I have about 5,500 square feet in Denver that costs about $7,500 a month. I figured she'd have more space than my little company.

So compared to me she's paying about 2.5 times more for a little more than half the space. A while back I saw cost-of-living comparisons that showed San Francisco being about 70 percent more expensive than Denver, which means that my space would cost about $13,000 a month there. But my space isn't fancy at all. So she's paying about triple what my space would cost.

I know the top-end fancy space in Denver is about 2.5 times my cost, so what it implies to me is that she got the nicest top-end space she could find. I don't think it sends a good message that the government gets better space than any private firm, but it doesn't surprise me that a high-level federal official gets it.

Funny story - There's a parking garage near us where we used to park, and it was pretty competitive space. It got a lot more competitive when a state government agency got a whole block of spaces reserved. So us non-government schmucks would have to drive by a bunch of open spaces that the agency had bought and reserved and drive up more floors to find an open spot on the roof, which was pretty annoying since it was supposed to be covered parking. At one point I met the head of the agency and commented that I was always driving by his open spaces, and he said something like, "Yeah, we didn't like having to drive around looking for spots." So just to review, the agency bought and paid for more spots than they needed so they could have a more convenient life, leaving the people who pay the taxes to drive past those empty reserved spots and find something else. It must be nice to simply take money whenever you want it.

Saul Good
06-15-2010, 09:22 PM
I think I'm going to open up a Bentley dealership. Then, I can drive a Bentley for free. I will pay for the car, but the payments will go back to myself, so it's a wash. Does anyone else want a Bentley? No charge.

HonestChieffan
06-15-2010, 09:40 PM
I think I'm going to open up a Bentley dealership. Then, I can drive a Bentley for free. I will pay for the car, but the payments will go back to myself, so it's a wash. Does anyone else want a Bentley? No charge.

A better deal and consistent with the issue would be you use Banyons money up front then pay yourself every month. To be fair, its a zero interest deal so just divide the Bentley price that Banyon paid by 60 and set up your cash flow for 5 years.

Now, you are the government.

googlegoogle
06-16-2010, 04:15 AM
Why does she need to be in downtown? Because she can and she doesn't give a s***.

mlyonsd
06-16-2010, 08:11 AM
Yes, there's no need for it. Given the set of data I just presented, at least with respect to Pelosi's rental only, there is no need to collect tax revenues on a net zero expense.

Then what is gained by charging 18k a month instead of .01?

I'm missing something here.

RaiderH8r
06-16-2010, 08:55 AM
You drive this car, don't you?

http://theweeklydriver.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/whitenano.jpg

If not, you're full of it.

I ride public transportation dick bag.