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.
.jpg)
3 comments:
You are absolutely right. Can be more economical in some cases. I think each case should be measured and weighed independently.
I would like to say that the MVA office should be relocated to out in Garapan. I think the building across Fisherman's wharf (John Boys) could be fixed up to accommodate MVA and the adjacent area developed into a Park. The area is already quite a beautiful park. It would be centrally located and be more accessible to tourists in Garapan, additionally, it would stick out. Although it would cost some to fix it up, in the long run it would be worth the move.
I agree that each case be measured and weighed. In the case for MVA in it's relocation, Garapan has always been the area in which it should be moved to, but with financial constraints, this move is difficult.
Jon,
I agree with you about MVA. I think the office should be located in good friendly spirit location. I visit often and cross landlord and they do not smile or show happiness. You feel unhappy about location.
Please relocate.
Post a Comment