Jackson Jambalaya

It isn't a study. It is a Powerpoint presentation written to support a predetermined conclusion.

It doesn't come remotely close to being an exhaustive consolidation analysis. What an absolute joke.

11:16, which part of the analysis, specifically, do you disagree with? Are the numbers wrong? Which ones?

Different anon than 11:16 PM.

First: It is a PowerPoint.

Second: Real estate leases have many details. Start date, length, ending date, possible rent escalation clauses, possible renewal options, possible early exit options, and so forth. Are all these existing leases so nearly the same as to allow treating them as differing only in NSF cost? That is what this presentation expects the viewer to believe in the absence of any additional information.

Third: Slide 18. Price Sept 2011 $14.1 million. Price NOW... ABOUT A YEAR LATER $7.6 Million. Question not asked or answered: Is either price supported by competent analysis? What explains a nearly 50% decrease in such a short timespan? Conclusion some taxpayers might reach (not present in the presentation): Someone might have paid way too much, the taxpayer just saved $7 million by not buying in 2011!

Fourth: There are some assumptions listed on page 19 and reference to possible additional assumptions in another previous report. What are they? Assumption is listed of a 2% escalation in current lease rates. Existing lease rates have this as a term of the lease, so what is the need to assume what can be calculated? What is the actual weighted escalation number? Corrected for the terms of the leases? Is this escalation number subject to renegotiation during the period of the NPV calculations?

Fifth: Page 21 shows the results of three Net Present Value calculations. Some discount rate must be used for these calculations what was it? One reason not to list it, the people the presentation is prepared for can't understand what a discount rate is.

Sixth: Do the predicted cash flows accurately account for maintenance?

Landmark is almost 30 years old with a huge atrium, but its is properly located in the heart of the financial district and three blocks from the capital. Its also a great location for University classes for JSU. The atrium space could be filled out as classrooms.

The site is adjoining the ancient bed of Town Creek, but if the structure is sound its ok. Premium office space in an excellent location should be snapped up by the state.

Why not place DOR in Hattiesburg. Good university town, close to coast,and source of part time help for tax season. Have small ofice area for DOR head and staff in Jackson so they can eexercise their power and be near Capital.

Obviously the numbers don't work for the state to purchase the landmark building. Fortunately there are multiple investors attempting to purchase the building and lease to the state. Their willingness to operate at a substantial loss is a noble effort to save downtown Jackson. God bless the giving people of Madison.

I'll go out on a limb that 1:49 has a competing building.

Love to see Messrs. Anon, all smarter than Cushman and Millsaps.

1:49 am
That it is a power point presentation just means it's a summary of findings in an easily presented format. The presentation format has zero relationship to the validity of the findings.

The sources are cited which contain answers to your challenges and there is a document with more detail accompanying the presentation.

You suggest bias existed for this study ( which arrives at the same conclusion as the Wakefield study) but you don't give any reason for a built in bias.

The Else School of Management is not a graduate program in state supported university. They are not dependent on political favor for funding. My personal experience with the school is that they tell those who seek their expertise what they need to know not what they want to hear as their reputation for accuracy and reliability in the academic community as well as the business community matters to them.

That there is value in locating state agencies in proximity to each other, the court and to the legislative body is well documented over time and rather obvious.

I suggest you learn more about the jobs being done by the employees and examine how often they file court documents and meet with legislators and other agencies. Those tasks involve travel time and finding parking downtown as well as the associated costs for both.

I do understand that deep pockets can buy integrity and results these days, even in academia, but when that happens, it is rather easy to source the funding for bias. Do you have evidence or just accusations?

As for me, the results are so transparently in line with other research ( including federal studies) that there is nothing in the conclusions to raise suspicion.

1:49 sounds like someone with skin in the game and took some real estate courses at Ole Miss. Hmmmm, wonder who that could be?

Somebody needs to teach the Millsaps students who did this study the concept of "garbage in, garbage out" with their data

...there is a document with more detail accompanying the presentation.

Release the document though it will likely be as superficial as the presentation.

Ok, fellow Anon snarks, let's get real.
This is a pretty little powerpoint presentation to sell Jackson as the best location for congregating state employees.
Granted, it's a nice, little powerpoint that some earnest young students created per instruction, but it lacks any data constructively comparing the three buildings under consideration by DFA. It does not address costs to retrofit or operate any of the three building options, and it is therefore irrelevant.
I'm disappointed, after the build up from the Jackson advocates commenting on this blog yesterday, I expected some substance and thought the study might have some merit. What a joke.

At least Blount commissioned a study to justify locating downtown. Gunn's bill to buy South Pointe (Old Worldcom building)for DOR is purely political. He doesn't even pretend that it will be cheaper than any other location.

The underlying data came from two Cushman & Wakefield studies in 2011. The first report is 130 pages and the second is 36 pages. We covered this in one of Prof. Brister's finance classes in Millsaps' MBA program. The data is pretty exhaustive. Some of the anonymous commentary on here is laughable.

Ask for a refund Mike.

I am not a real estate guy, especially commercial. I readily admit that I do not have a strong grasp on the business of CRE.

That having been said, I can follow a presentation (which is what this is) and the data make sense as presented here. I'm not sure what shape the LC is in and what will be required to "bring it to code" or whatever, but locating the DOR there seems to be a sensible and economical option, based upon the numbers presented. I have no reason to presume those preparing this study are motivated to lie or misrepresent their findings.

However, it is troubling that the best candidate for this building is a government agency. I keep hearing about waiting lists for the KE and SL buildings, but I don't see anyone rushing in to build the Walthall Apartments or the Landmark Center Condos. This notion that a deluge of citizens is waiting to relo to downtown doesn't pass the smell test, esp. at the rates we're seeing for the two towers.

As I said, I know little of CRE, but it seems to me that 7.8 million is a steal for that building in good shape. If the best tenant is YAGA (yet another government agency), then there are deeper issues.

Hey, Mike G, not to be nitpicky (well, yeah it is), but I would think a college student would know that it is "the data ARE pretty exhaustive." Love, your friendly neighborhood grammar cop.

The most compelling UH OH in this study to me is the square foot space per person that the state wastes. The GSA is like 223 feet/person amd the state is like 323. Just getting space / foot to equal the GSA would save a lot of money. Does anyone know the private sector standard/ feet/ person?

10:41...Red below from the WSJ then apologize. "Most style guides and dictionaries have come to accept the use of the noun data with either singular or plural verbs, and we hereby join the majority.

As usage has evolved from the word's origin as the Latin plural of datum, singular verbs now are often used to refer to collections of information: Little data is available to support the conclusions."

10:45. 160 per person private sector. Tthe state is twice that.

http://blogs.clarionledger.com/samrhall/2013/02/10/gunn-not-in-enviable-position-over-department-of-revenue/

10:41...Google "data is or data are" then come back and apologize.

OK, you've had enough grammar fun. Back to our regularly scheduled programming. Public Schoolhouse Rock is not on tv until this weekend.

I read Sam Hall's piece and I pretty much agree with him. It's a fair assessment of the situation.

I have no love for these downtown cheerleaders who tout all these ethereal benefits of the downtown area while ignoring the drawbacks and backing up their claims with anecdotal folderol. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

It seems to me that the data are clear.

Dem sum big woids 11:36. Dayum!

I agree however totally.

Sam Hall's piece leaves out one important detail! Philip Gunn's constituents are NOT ONLY in Clinton. Almost 40% of his district is in MADISON COUNTY!
Stop making the rest of the state pay through the nose for this Clinton option when you are supposed to do what is in the best interests of the whole state!

Who paid for the "study"?

There is no proof that the Ridgeland location isn't more cost effective. Move DOR to Ridgeland. Madison County will welcome them with open arms.

Someone either works for Gunn or has wayyyyy too much time on his hands to spend so much time defending him and deriding the study.

12:18. Tell it like it is!

1:31 I agree. What difference does it make? Is this person implying that C and W AND Else School/ Millsaps can be paid off to lie? When you are clearly wrong, change the subject and deride and cause doubt regarding your opponent. Right out of the Sol Alinsky play book.

So Gunn is going to crater Clinton's tax base by putting Southpark OFF the tax base?

Boy Kingfish. In checking you traffic counter, some people from the state are really checking out your site! Hmmmm

Hard to stomach a liberal Democrat (Blount) schooling Tea Party Republican advocates on fiscal responsiblity with regards to frugal taxation and the best use of taxpayer dollars.

Where does Mary Hawkins fit in this picture?

2:41 Nowhere at all. The Diversified Technologies building is in Ridgeland. It would be nice if Madison the city were in the running for such a state agency, but we all know that developers do not want to build in Madison because of the expensive and over burdensome demands. The next wave of development is going straight to Gluckstadt.

We have come a long way from the $50mm palace on Lakeland Drive about 2 years ago. Who says the people can't speak? Now if our esteemed legislators can simply connect the obvious dots.

Perhaps you don't know the State Department of Rehabilitation Services is in Madison and is undergoing an expansion as we speak. I believe it's their second or third expansion.

Did you note that the Clarion Liar reported that the Bureau of Revenue was located in Raymond? Someone really screwed that up. When it was downtown before, parking and getting around was awful, I can only imagine what it would be at the Landmark Building. If they want to stay in Clinton where they ARE now, get the building that WorldCom was in, easy to get to, good parking nice restaurants. The Diversified Tech building on Highland Colony does not have sufficient parking and Highland Colony is a nightmare with the traffic and deer. POLITICS,POLITICS!

We are quite fond of our deer out here on Highland Colony, thank you very much. Our turkeys, too.

3:41. It is so much fun when people come on here and make stupid statements. It is in Raymond now, not Clinton. Duh.

This has to do with money, taxing efficiencies and 3 reports done by people in this arena, with no dog in the hunt. There are 38 restaurants downtown within walking distance of the LMC.

Parking is addressed in the report...it is called a PARKING GARAGE. If you check around, you will find that all big cities have them.

The only POLITICS, POLITICS thus far has been the shortsighted actions of Mississippi's Speaker of the House.

What is Harvey Johnson's position on Blount's legislation? Haven't seen him endorsing the move.

Methinks he doesn't seem to have one. That would require a decision and putting your ass on the line one way or the other, something the King has for 12 years been reluctant to do. May even call for some concensus building and leadership. You know..."plays well with others". Now the King and THAT is a joke.

Harvey is doing actually what he should be doing- nothing. The legislature is not fond of Mr. Johnson. He needs to stay out of the public scene on this one.

Gunn is going to have to overcome the overwhelming math here.

Moving DOR to the Landmark will be an economic disaster for Jackson, JPS and Hinds County.

Over 20 years it will cost Jackson a minimum of $4,749,300 in lost property tax revenue.

Over 20 years it will cost JPS a minimum of $6,341,950 in lost property tax revenue.

Over 20 years it will cost Hinds County a minimum of $3,137,000 in lost property tax revenue.

The total over 20 years, at the minimum, will be over $14,228,250.

This will represent an extreme hardship and must be addressed before taking the Landmark off the tax rolls.

The LMC's assesed value will crater now that it is empty, and the expected taxes will as well. Your numbers are incredibly ignorant and naive on how appraised values and subsequent taxes in commercial real estate work.

You really thought you had a "gotcha", didn't you?

it is appraising now that is empty, i would imagine, for less that a million bucks....should be a cool 18k a year max

@10:41 Grammar cop, you are so right. I should have been more careful in crafting my blog comment.

5:01 take heart. You were right after all. See comment at 11:03.

Look people...play your politics with my tax dollars elsewhere.

Having a state agency near the other government entities with which that agency interacts on a regular basis is not only time efficient but frugal.

Some of you are trashing this and in doing so revealing your absolute lack of experience and/or knowledge but rather making your political agenda plain.

hate to tell you 4:01 but DOR isnt anywhere near Raymond - but it does border on Clinton city limits. check a map, da.

2577 Springridge Road RAYMOND is the address idiot. KF please keep these children off of your site. Please filter them. Google it dumbass. RAYMOND not CLINTON.

WHERE IS THE TEA PARTY??? Why are they quiet. Or are they bogus?

9:05 wake up! The Tea Party are racists including Kim. They are quiet because Jackson is 88% AA. they hate us even in their sleep.

The PO address says Raymond but its like the Rez addresses all say Brandon even though they are not close to Brandon.

The building is RIGHT NEXT TO the Clinton City Limits. Raymond is several miles away. I'll put it to you this way, Rosemary is alot more concerned about it moving than is the Mayor of Raymond. The building is not in any city but due to USPS classifications, is listed as Raymond. However, its not in Raymond.

That means Raymond and 8:31 is still wrong. Thank you KF.

Its not in Raymond. I don't care what the CL and USPS says, its not in Raymond. I'm sure Brandon would love to have all that property tax revenue from Baypointe, Audubon Point, and all those other neighborhoods on Spillway that are listed by USPS as Brandon.

WELL IT AIN'T IN CLINTON EITHER. over.

NOR COMING TO HOUSE FLOOR. out.

Still waiting on one of these relocation geniuses to explain why it makes sense for all these gov't offices to be in close proximity of one another and close to a court and the mansion. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by that other than all the suits and skirts getting together for lunch. These people never leave their desks, much less interract with other agencies located next door. "Frugal"? Prove it.

How astute you are 10:09. Neither will. They will go to conference committee. Both of them into cc. Do you even know what that is?

5:44 dial up Baton Rouge and see what moving state offices downtown has meant to that capital city.

Shadow...glad to help you.

If an employee has to file documents in court, attend a legislative meeting,or go out of town ( which is often done to collect revenues owed the state) and their offices are in west of Jackson, there will be 40 minutes minimum of driving time ( that's to and from) and some time lost finding parking. That is a loss of time that could be spent working in the office. It is travel costs and wear and tear loss on vehicles...some of which will be state owned.

Proximity to restaurants for lunch offers time savings as well. 5 extra minutes a day x 5 is 25 minutes a week and that's going to be a minimum of 23 hours a year lost time.

The study also dealt with lease space per employee and at 323 Mississippi is wasting money.

This stuff has been studied for decades, Shadowfax and not just for government. Efficient use of space research and time management/productivity studies abound.

No one is reinventing the wheel here but rather some are trying to pretend the wheel hasn't been invented to satisfying their personal agendas.

@7:17 Thank you for bringing up Baton Rouge as I was thinking of that myself. Moving state offices downtown has worked well for that city, and has helped spark a renaissance downtown, which like Jackson was a ghosttown after 5 during the 1990s.

Not February 11, 2013 at 10:09 PM but I'm certain a bill can't go to House-Senate conference February 12, 2013 at 6:34 AM without having first been on the floors of both.

Oh, I see. So, jamming all these state offices into a central location is (1) good for the city and (2) helps with lunch plans.

I knew there must be a reason it made sense. 8:40, you're cherry picking a business reason falls flat. Of the tens of thousands of employees crammed into central jacktown, how many on a given day might need to get a paper signed and save ten minutes travel time? These various state offices could/should be scattered to the four corners of the state for economic purposes and they'd work just fine.

Ed Buelow was happy to move out to the cusp of Clinton, mainly because he did not particularly want to run into legislators or other state government workers. As good as he was at his job, however, he was a little too particular in many ways. There is ordinarily great value in face-to-face meetings and informal encounters. And money will be saved by moving to Jackson. Again, money will be saved. The rest is silence.

Shadow...you are missing the point...deliberately, I expect.

There aren't 10s of thousands of employees working for the Dept. of Revenue.

Their jobs have specific tasks.

It's not " 10 minutes" of travel time from the alternate locations even in one direction and one does have to return to work.

Shadow, have you mever had a job or are you being obtuse just to be argumentative?

I'm talking about the thousands of state employees working for all state offices combined, Mozilla. The suggestion, by you and others, inaccurately claims that all these people be dumped into the concrete abyss of crime and debauchery called Jackson, for purposes that are disingenous, at best. Your suggestion that proximity of agencies in downtown Jackson would more easily allow all the gerbils to run around getting documents signed and stamped in a timely fashion, is bullshit.

Employment Security is miles from downtown. Rehabilitation Services headquarters is in another county. Wildlife is hidden away in a wooded area, much like a Utah compound, nowhere near central Jackson. And we all know by now where the tax people have been for two decades. How have we possibly been able to survive without getting together for lunch? Your suggestion is as hollow as a rotted stump.

And you sir are an idiot. Please use some of your obviously ample time to research any other city our size for apples and apples. You won't because you are a self absorbed child in search of being "somebody" in your twisted world. You are clearly unworldly. Best to you, and enjoy your hollow wold.

KF you ought to start a new blog and this time shadowlips isn't invited. She has gotten completely out of control. To think that there is nothing to gain by centralizing city government branches. I bet the feds feel real stupid with that whole Washington D.C. area.

Meople; while you're scrambling to understand the definition of 'metropolitan area', maybe you can find time to tell us what success you see from having 'all of government' together in D.C. Agency heads in Mississippi don't typically need to gather together to vote or conference or work through committee business. And you're just as confused with 'government branches' as you were with 'Metro'. These are agencies, not branches of government that need to sit together and hash out the people's business. None of these agencies meet together regularly in order to carry out their functions. Your lack of understanding is appalling.

I'm not suggesting that consolidated government offices WON'T work. I'm simply pointing out that it's foolish to suggest that's a requirement or that things work best that way. Nobody can show that it would. They'll work fine spread across Clinton, Pelahatchie, Madison, and a compound in the woods behind the Blind School.

Can any of you point out how it's NOT worked with the four agencies I just mentioned ~ the ones that are NOT in the concrete jungle? Those agency heads would go to battle rather than face the consolidation you suggest.

SF you keep pointing to the fact that these agencies don't want to move. Of course they don't, they want toprotect their fiefdom and outsized offices. However, it is the tax payers, not one agency head that need to be satisfied here.

Let's assume, for the moment, that agency heads want their agencies to function at peak performance level. Peak performance satisfies those to whom the agency head reports, might aid the agency head in his/her goal of upward gubment mobility and might satisfy the public served by the agency (keeping in mind that all any agency does is serve the public).

With that in mind, let's assume that the agency head wants to do what's best for the agency so it can accomplish that mission.

How many agency heads are we hearing from on these blog threads who advocate centralization for the purpose of improving agency performance? I suspect NONE. I'm still looking for suggestions from the 'all knowing public' as to how consolidating all these people in one location (or centrally within ten blocks even) will better serve the public. And, please, enough with the stupidity of people being able to get a judge to stamp something quicker if they're downtown.

Do the rest of the citizens of Mississippi owe it to Jackson to dig it out of its cesspool by forcing more government renters or lunch patrons into downtown? No! Do agencies themselves owe it to Downtown Partners, Leland Speed, Harvey Johnson and the yupsters who live in the King Edward to bail out downtown? No! Do agencies exist to participate in the salvation of failed inner cities? No! Is it the job of an agency head to force all his/her people into the bowels of Jacktown in order to stimulate the economy? No! Does the state have an obligation to populate downtown buildings to a degree greater than its obligation to populate a building in Clinton? No. And if the state does have such an obligation, where do gunfire, vacancies and crumbling facilities factor into that awkward equation?

Ask the Employment Department why they got the hell out of town.

The agencies of state government are not 'branches of government' in the sense misunderstood by people like Meople. They exist and operate independently for one purpose - to serve the public, not to serve Jackson or her cheerleaders.

Hear! Hear!

Do you know any agency heads SF? Do you think they have the publics best interest? Do you not think there is waste and abuse?

6:29; Do you have evidence that any agency head does NOT have the public's interest at heart? What an absurd suggestion.

Sure, there's waste and abuse and need for improvement everywhere. More of it exists in downtown Jackson though, don'tcha think? Show us how cramming people into Jackson will lessen waste and abuse or improve service to the public.

Have you driven downtown lately to deal with any government office? How much do you have to pay to park at Rehab Services, the Tax Commission, Wildlife and Parks, Unemployment Insurance headquarters? How many blocks do you walk and how many elevators do you endure? None, none and none. It's all about public service, not suits at lunch or filling empty office space in a concrete jungle.

4:12 AM!!! You need to get a life.

6:38 AM ... YAWN ... ZZZZZzzzzzzz

638. Careful on calling out SF. Surprised it go through.

2:33 - you left out 'snore' this time. We can always count on you for an insightful contribution. Right?