Can the Gov't Maintain it' Building?
There was a comment made on the Marianas Variety today about government owned building versus leasing of other facilties. I expressed myself writing to this issue as I felt that the person who left his/her comment only looked at one side of the picture whereas, there is more to consider in the leasing of a facility. Some may disagree, but these are my points of how I would look at a faciltiy if and when to lease.
In response to the comments made on the online Marianas Variety edition December 30, 2008 entitled "MVA doesn't comply with procurement rules"
I agree that both concepts about saving is right on track and is needed for the government today, I don't stand and state my comments on the basis of brown nosing, but I would like to point out the very fact that sometimes renting is better than owning. They mainly fall within the reasons of maintenance. The landlord is ultimately responsible for the up-keeping of such facilities inclusive but are limited to; 1. Air conditioning unit(s) 2. Restroom and toiletry supplies 3. Grounds Maintenance 4. In-door maintenance (some exceptions) 5. Major structural repairs in the event of normal wear and tear of the facility through nature oriented atrocities 6. Protection of building/facility from harm 7. Meets all safety standards and fire codes 8. Location usually reasonable for such offices as compared to the Hill I guess, my point is simple, sometimes, renting facilities is a much more economical advantage. Although I sympathize they maybe to an extent, some agreements are truly beneficial to landlords, but that in itself helps the economy overall. Look at CUC, when they moved into La Fiesta, it was not long before they had to abandon the area due to higher cost to maintain their operation on a government owned building. So much to consider and not just the figure seen on the rental contract.