NEWSROOM
Commentary Articles
In The News
News Releases
Experts



Media Inquiries

Kim Cloidt
Director of Marketing & Communications
(510) 632-1366 x116
(202) 725-7722 (cell)
Send Email

Robert Ade
Communications Manager
(510) 632-1366 x114
Send Email


Subscribe



Commentary
Facebook Facebook Facebook Facebook

Contribute
Your participation will advance liberty. Join us as an Independent Institute member.



Contact Us
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA 94621-1428

510-632-1366 Phone
510-568-6040 Fax
Send us email


Interested in working with us?  Click here for more information.

Commentary

State’s Policy is to Leave Money Sitting Idle during Deficit Times


     
 Print 

California’s political leaders are in the midst of celebrating their temporary “solving” of the state’s Brobdingnagian budget mess by combining spending cuts and tax increases with heavy doses of accounting legerdemain. Once again, however, Sacramento has failed to take advantage of a golden opportunity to stanch the red ink without increasing the burden on the private sector—selling state-owned properties.

At the urging of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Department of General Services—the state’s landlord—has indeed recently started exploring opportunities to market some of California’s most valuable assets, including the Los Angeles Coliseum, Daly City’s Cow Palace and San Quentin State Prison.

That renewed effort represents a major policy change since 2000, when California’s state auditor sharply criticized the General Services Department for failing to dispose of surplus state property expeditiously, thus bypassing billions of dollars in potential revenue.

According to the statewide property inventory maintained by the Real Estate Services Division of the General Services Department, the taxpayers of California owned 22,727 buildings and more than 6.7 million acres of land at 2,313 sites statewide as of Jan. 2, 2008.

It turns out that state government policy erects barriers to exploiting that potential source of ready cash.

Other than ordinary bureaucratic inertia, delays created by filing environmental impact statements and complying with master facilities plans, the chief reason for foot-dragging is that state agencies have little incentive to identify and sell the properties they no longer need. If and when surplus property actually is disposed of, the General Services Department applies the proceeds (net of its own costs) to pay interest and principal on state bonds. Agencies incur the cost of identifying surplus property, but do not share in the gains from doing so.

Moreover, “surplus” properties can only be disposed of with approval from the state Legislature. Given that such authorization only comes once a year, properties may remain in limbo for up to 14 months while awaiting legislative approval.

Two simple policy changes would transform the incentives now impeding the disposal of surplus state-owned properties: First, eliminate the right of first refusal, thereby forcing public agencies to compete with the private sector for the right to acquire “surplus” lands and ensuring that property ownership is transferred at fair market value to its highest and best user; and second, allow the selling agency to retain a predetermined percentage of that value, thus motivating it to identify and dispose of no longer needed property in a timely manner.

It’s of course true that property now considered “surplus” is only the tip of the fiscal iceberg. If California taxpayers demanded that state government return to its core functions of protecting private-property rights and safeguarding the rule of law, many more state-owned assets would fall under the auctioneer’s hammer.


William F. Shughart II is a Research Director and Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute, J. Fish Smith Professor in Public Choice in the Jon M. Huntsman School of Business at Utah State University, and editor of the Independent Institute book, Taxing Choice: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination.


  New from William F. Shughart II!
TAXING CHOICE: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination
So-called “sin taxes”—the taxing of certain products, like alcohol and tobacco, that are deemed to be “politically incorrect”—have long been a favorite way for politicians to fund programs benefiting special interest groups. But this concept has been applied to such “sinful” products as soft drinks, margarine, telephone calls, airline tickets, and even fishing gear. What is the true record of this selective, often punitive, approach to taxation?






Home | About Us | Blogs | Issues | Newsroom | Multimedia | Events | Publications | Centers | Students | Store | Donate

Product Catalog | RSS | Jobs | Course Adoption | Links | Privacy Policy | Site Map
Facebook Facebook Facebook Facebook
Copyright 2014 The Independent Institute