<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rep. Matt Dean on Bonding for State Buildings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mnfmi.org/2009/04/03/rep-matt-dean/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mnfmi.org/2009/04/03/rep-matt-dean/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:50:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Further Adventures of Alice in Wonderland &#171; Minnesota Free Market Institute</title>
		<link>http://mnfmi.org/2009/04/03/rep-matt-dean/comment-page-1/#comment-335</link>
		<dc:creator>The Further Adventures of Alice in Wonderland &#171; Minnesota Free Market Institute</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:04:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnfmi.org/?p=1530#comment-335</guid>
		<description>[...] Rep. Matt Dean on Bonding for State Buildings [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Rep. Matt Dean on Bonding for State Buildings [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jamie Wellik</title>
		<link>http://mnfmi.org/2009/04/03/rep-matt-dean/comment-page-1/#comment-93</link>
		<dc:creator>Jamie Wellik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:01:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnfmi.org/?p=1530#comment-93</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately, there is no examination of the actual costs for public buildings and how those relate to market costs. 
 
State employees in St. Paul have recently vacated some several hundred thousand square feet of office space costing around $10-12 per square foot (market value, $150 psf) in favor of newly built state offices that cost taxpayers over $300 per square foot. (The landmark IDS building in downtown Minneapolis, for example, a prime piece of office real estate, fetched around $215 per square foot at the same time, and rents out at over well over $20 per square foot net of operation costs.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately, there is no examination of the actual costs for public buildings and how those relate to market costs. </p>
<p>State employees in St. Paul have recently vacated some several hundred thousand square feet of office space costing around $10-12 per square foot (market value, $150 psf) in favor of newly built state offices that cost taxpayers over $300 per square foot. (The landmark IDS building in downtown Minneapolis, for example, a prime piece of office real estate, fetched around $215 per square foot at the same time, and rents out at over well over $20 per square foot net of operation costs.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Shepard</title>
		<link>http://mnfmi.org/2009/04/03/rep-matt-dean/comment-page-1/#comment-25</link>
		<dc:creator>John Shepard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:26:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnfmi.org/?p=1530#comment-25</guid>
		<description>Kudos! We can build well just as easily if we plan for long-term needs with materials that will last, and then take care of things.

I am distressed when I read about the State Dept. of Education requiring local school districts in Greater Minnesota to tear down rather than rehabilitate historic structures because they don&#039;t have a big enough lot for future expansion.  Um, hello? Get outside St.Paul much?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kudos! We can build well just as easily if we plan for long-term needs with materials that will last, and then take care of things.</p>
<p>I am distressed when I read about the State Dept. of Education requiring local school districts in Greater Minnesota to tear down rather than rehabilitate historic structures because they don&#8217;t have a big enough lot for future expansion.  Um, hello? Get outside St.Paul much?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Conservatives can&#8217;t cave to chest-beating primates &#171; Minnesota Free Market Institute</title>
		<link>http://mnfmi.org/2009/04/03/rep-matt-dean/comment-page-1/#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>Conservatives can&#8217;t cave to chest-beating primates &#171; Minnesota Free Market Institute</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:13:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnfmi.org/?p=1530#comment-24</guid>
		<description>[...] Update: See &#8220;Rep. Matt Dean on Bonding for State Buildings&#8220; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Update: See &#8220;Rep. Matt Dean on Bonding for State Buildings&#8220; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marilyn Bennett</title>
		<link>http://mnfmi.org/2009/04/03/rep-matt-dean/comment-page-1/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>Marilyn Bennett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:44:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnfmi.org/?p=1530#comment-20</guid>
		<description>That would be a welcome change if the government would spend only on repairs for the next three years.  In my small town we have torn down two perfectly good buildings and built new ones.  The &quot;old&quot; buildings were built in the 60&#039;s so have no historical significance and are no longer &quot;energy efficient&quot;.  We can afford to do this because there is lots of State Aid to cities to build new, but not much aid to take care of the old.  It is the same with our tax laws for private buildings, there is no incentive to repair rather than tear down and build new.
Good Luck, 
I worked for the State for a while several years ago in the accounting area and know that it will be next to impossible to get any agency to give up a single dollar.  When pressed they will spend the money on something (anything) rather than give it back.  They will also have ample justification for their spending.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That would be a welcome change if the government would spend only on repairs for the next three years.  In my small town we have torn down two perfectly good buildings and built new ones.  The &#8220;old&#8221; buildings were built in the 60&#8242;s so have no historical significance and are no longer &#8220;energy efficient&#8221;.  We can afford to do this because there is lots of State Aid to cities to build new, but not much aid to take care of the old.  It is the same with our tax laws for private buildings, there is no incentive to repair rather than tear down and build new.<br />
Good Luck,<br />
I worked for the State for a while several years ago in the accounting area and know that it will be next to impossible to get any agency to give up a single dollar.  When pressed they will spend the money on something (anything) rather than give it back.  They will also have ample justification for their spending.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

