Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, July 14, 2011

Statehouse Live: Lease agreement for SRS office has conditions

July 14, 2011, 11:37 a.m. Updated July 14, 2011, 5:50 p.m.

Advertisement

— Supporters of keeping open the Lawrence office of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services said Thursday the building’s lease with the state may help their efforts.

A provision in the lease between SRS and Lawrence developer and property owner Duane Schwada’s Venture Realty Corp. for two buildings at 19th and Delaware streets, states that SRS “shall use its best efforts to obtain annual appropriations to satisfy its obligations under this lease.”

Related document

Lease agreement for SRS office ( .PDF )

Related document

SRS office lease amendment ( .PDF )

“I think this puts an affirmative obligation on them (SRS) to provide for the money in their budget,” said House Minority Leader Paul Davis, D-Lawrence.

Local leaders are searching for ways to reverse the decision by SRS Secretary Robert Siedlecki Jr. to close the Lawrence office.

Siedlecki has said that the state budget approved by the Legislature and Gov. Sam Brownback calls for $42 million in cuts to SRS, including $1 million in administrative expenses.

On July 1, Siedlecki announced his intention to shut down nine offices, including the one in Lawrence, which serves thousands of people and employs 87. The Lawrence office was, by far, the largest on the closure list.

Community meetings on the issue have drawn hundreds of people, and more events are scheduled, including a rally at 9:30 a.m. Saturday at South Park.

Siedlecki has said closing the Lawrence office will save the state $413,385, which includes $331,875 in rent. He and Brownback have said that people utilizing SRS in Lawrence can travel to nearby cities, such as Topeka, Overland Park and Ottawa, or use the Internet. Social service advocates and law enforcement officials have said that is not realistic and the closure will disrupt assistance for many vulnerable citizens.

In a meeting with reporters on Monday, Siedlecki and his top staff said they were confident they would be able to terminate the lease for the Lawrence SRS office. They said they want to work with local leaders to see if there is a possibility for free office space for a small number of SRS employees.

“We want to make sure it is an orderly process,” Siedlecki said.

The full lease provision cited by Davis states: “Lessee (SRS, in this case) shall include in its annual administrative services budget the funds necessary for Lessee's obligations under this Lease, and shall use its best efforts to obtain annual appropriations to satisfy its obligations under this Lease.”

Davis said SRS has discretionary spending that could, and should, be allocated to fulfilling its contracts, including this one.

Another provision that was added to the lease in December 2008 states: “Subject to termination for fiscal necessity, four years of occupancy are guaranteed. The Lessee may terminate this lease upon the giving of 180 days notice in writing to the Lessor, after the end of the four year guaranteed lease period.”Opponents of the Lawrence closure say it will disrupt critical services for many vulnerable residents.

In a meeting on Monday with reporters and editors of the Journal-World, Siedlecki and his staff indicated they would be able to terminate the lease for the Lawrence SRS office.

Comments

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

So, I guess they won't be able to break the lease with no cost after all. Oh well, more work for those high priced Koch brothers lawyers.

0

tolawdjk 3 years, 2 months ago

Bah, contracts with the state aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

0

guesswho 3 years, 2 months ago

Too bad the Brownback administration fired the state lawyers when he took office,otherwise someone competent might have read the fine print.

0

LHS56 3 years, 2 months ago

I know the owner has knowledge, skill and good attorneys when leasing a property. Also....he has deep pockets. I don't think the State will be able to break the lease. They may "decide" to not pay but my quess will be the landlord will take the State to court and win. It seems a shame that some of our government employees just don't have the skills to match their counterparts in the private sector.
However, knowing Brownback and his buddies.....they will still close the office and find money in the budget to not only pay the lease but legal expense.
I'm not surprised....but disappointed.

0

jhawkinsf 3 years, 2 months ago

This is a perfect example of one particular problem that plagues government at all levels and includes both political parties. It's not that, (to quote you) "government employees don't have the skills to match their counterparts in the private sector". It's that they lack an incentive to advocate for their clients with the same vigor that those in the private sector have. The advocates for the building owner (lawyers, accountants) are putting their jobs and their livelihood on the line because a bad deal will mean a lost client and lost income. Their counterparts in government will pass the buck should a deal be deemed bad further down the line. Some future governor or legislature will most likely increase spending or cut services to cover that bad deal. But the government lawyers and accountants will not be fired for making what looks to be a bad deal for their client, us.

0

mcontrary 3 years, 2 months ago

Too bad we have Brownback in office.

0

jafs 3 years, 2 months ago

Wouldn't this be the kind of thing to check out before deciding to close the office here?

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

That's assuming they had any actual thought-out reasons for closing the Lawrence office other than political retribution. Heck, the documents we saw earlier in the week were dated 7/7 or undated. Its almost as if they decided to close it because they felt like it, then had to make up some faux "proof" of why the the decision was made.

0

Jan Rolls 3 years, 2 months ago

He closed it because of policitics which in turn will bite him where it hurts.

0

JohnSickels 3 years, 2 months ago

So basically...closing the office saves no money, either they have to pay the lease anyway, bribe the landlord out of the lease, or get sued and pay lawyers.

Further evidence that this was about politics, not money.

Brownback is scum.

0

Bob Forer 3 years, 2 months ago

"Brownback is scum."

you're too nice to the guy. Brownback is &^%$(*&^%(#$@.

0

Jenni Allen 3 years, 2 months ago

i agree with you about brownback

0

scott3460 3 years, 2 months ago

How about Brownbutt is &^%$(*&^%(#$@ scum.

0

neilhull 3 years, 2 months ago

When govt. makes contracts with civilian entities there is a clause in the contracts that states the govt. can cancel any contract in interest of the govt. Regardless of what the lease says, the owner was also served with a contract that list these clauses. They can cancel the lease and not pay future.

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

So this clause is present in this contract? I'm asking since I didn't read the lease yet.

0

lunacydetector 3 years, 2 months ago

third amendment of the lease agreement

"1. subject to termination for fiscal necessity"

that means s.r.s. walks! nice reporting

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

"A 2008 amendment to the lease says that under termination for fiscal necessity, four years of occupancy are guaranteed. "The Lessee may terminate this lease upon the giving of 180 days of notice in writing to the Lessor, after the end of the (4) year guaranteed lease period," the agreement states." no, sounds like not. Again, more legal work for those $300/hour lawyers.

0

lunacydetector 3 years, 2 months ago

  1. subject to termination for fiscal necessity,"

this means tenant can walk. i guarantee it. it is listed as #1

again, nice reporting. should've had someone who can read a lease read it first before writing an article about it.

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

And the clause puts restrictions on the fiscal termination.

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

"Both parties mutually agree to the following terms: 1. Subject to termination for fiscal necessity, four (4) years of occupancy are guaranteed. 2. The Lessee may terminate this lease upon the giving of 180 days notice in writing to the Lessor, after the end of the (4) year guaranteed lease period. 3. Effective December 20, 2008, the Lessee will lease 29,500 square feet of office space at the rate of $11.25 per square foot. 4. The Lessee will make quarterly lease payments. 5. At the conclusion of year four (4), a Consumer Price Index (CPI) lease rate increase will be applied at a rate and condition agreed upon by both parties. 6. If the lease is terminated prior to the expiration of the term, any unearned lease payment will be refunded to the Lessee on a pro rata basis." Clause was added when the lease was renewed.

0

Eride 3 years, 2 months ago

Maybe you should learn how to read.

"Termination for fiscal necessity" is further defined later on (as is normal in any contract) as requiring a 4 year guaranteed lease period and then 180 days notice following that.

You can't just take a few words out of an entire contract, the contract as a whole is what is looked at. Every contract functions like this, which leads me to believe that you have either never looked at any contract or that you are intentionally trolling.

0

lunacydetector 3 years, 2 months ago

why don't you state the "termination for fiscal necessity" language defined. it certainly isn't defined in the amendment and the lease doesn't download.

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

"Notwithstanding any other provisions of this lease, if funds anticipated for the continued fulfillment of this lease agreement are at any time not forthcoming either through failure of the legislature to appropriate funds specifically budgeted for this lease or the discontinuance or material alteration of the program under which funds were provided, then second party hall have the right to terminate this lease by giving first party a reasonable notice specifying the reasons for such necessary termination. The termination of the lease pursuant to this paragraphh shall not cause any penalty to be charged ton the state agency."

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

So I would think it will be up to a court to determine whether the 2008 clause further defining when fiscal necessity overrides this clause. The programs SRS provides have not yet been materially altered or discontinued, and to my knowledge the legislature did not specifically eliminate funds for this lease, so a court will ultimately decide. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I doubt you are either.

0

lunacydetector 3 years, 2 months ago

it essentially says they can walk. a court case would only make some attorney a little wealthier...but it would be frivolous to try.

0

MyName 3 years, 2 months ago

It says if they do leave before a certain time period (4 years) they pay a penalty, after that time period, they have to give 180 days notice and pay no penalty. Since the lease was signed 2008, they are subject to the penalty.

0

Lindsey Buscher 3 years, 2 months ago

Scott,

"In a meeting on Monday with reporters and editors of the Journal-World, Siedlecki and his staff indicated they would be able to terminate the lease for the Lawrence SRS office."

But at what cost? I am sure the LJW asked this question, did you get an answer? Or was it one of those, "We are looking into the matter..." non-answer answer.

0

Lindsey Buscher 3 years, 2 months ago

Scott & LJW,

Have you asked fmr Governor Parkinson or Sibelius for comment? They both made spending cuts, but did they ever consider cutting SRS like this?

0

somedude20 3 years, 2 months ago

Jesus will help!!! hahahahaha. Last night as I prayed to the lord above, I asked the dear lord for a sign and wouldn't you know it, thirty seconds later I had diarrhea; proof that there is a god. I see trees of green, red roses too I know that Brownback is out to faa..., I mean, make love to you And I think to myself what a wonderful Sam

I see Koch and Sam, with their heads in the sand They kill the poor, take away your rights And I think to myself what a wonderful Sam

0

Jonathan Kealing 3 years, 2 months ago

Let me just be clear: we're not, at this point, saying that the state can't get out of the lease. But we're also not saying they can. We're still reporting and at this point we're giving you all the contracts and comments to examine while we continue to try and get more information.

0

Catalano 3 years, 2 months ago

I think it's tonight. Called a "buck moon" (I heard on some weather report last night...not Channel 6).

0

sciencegeek 3 years, 2 months ago

Full Moon is July 15 at 1:40 a.m. local time. Traditionalyy known as the Thunder Moon or Hay Moon.

0

Liberty275 3 years, 2 months ago

Can some scoundrel in the law profession explain why this means anything other than brownback (alias kansas, government, fascist) has to pay for three months of rent on the building to satisfy the requirements necessary for the state to abandon the facility?

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 2 months ago

180 days is approx 6 months, not 3. The guaranteed period of the lease doesn't end until December. According to the lease they must give 180 days AFTER the four years is up, essentially making the lease four and a half years. Therefore, no matter when SRS moves out (my understanding is that it was going to be this October), they have to pay rent until about halfway through June of 2012. If they close in October, as announced, that means paying 8 months of rent for nothing.

0

jafs 3 years, 2 months ago

If I understand it correctly, the lease started in 2008. Given a 4 year minimum, we'd have to rent it for another year before we could use the 6 month thing.

0

madameX 3 years, 2 months ago

I'm not a scoundrel, but I'll give it a go:

The 180 day requirement doesn't kick in til 4 years after the amendment takes effect. Since it took effect in 2008, the 180 day requirement doesn't kick in til 2012. So SRS guaranteed that they would stay for at least the for 4 years after the amendment, but after 4 years they only have to give 180 days notice to vacate.

Also, 180 days is 6 months, not 3.

0

madameX 3 years, 2 months ago

Hey, looks like I should scroll down before getting sassy...

0

4accountability 3 years, 2 months ago

I really think we should be upset with whoever made the original (bad) deal...sounds like somebody was already recieving way too much rent for this building. If this is the kind of deal they made in Lawrence I would expect for the new SRS managment to look for cheaper digs in every office across the state where possible. It probably is happening elsewhere. I saw an article that said the Fort Scott landlord would have taken less rent...really??? Well too late!

I say its time to quit whining and direct the blame at those who have been lining their pockets with your money.

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

I agree that there was probably profiteering going on. However, at this point the focus should be on current and future profiteering, like directing public funds to faith-based marriage prep programs, and hiring outside attorneys to handle the state's legal business. The taxpayers should be outraged about firing experienced administrative staff and replacing them with inexperienced political cronies at higher salaries. They should be furious that the current administration is firing state employees and bringing in politically connected consultants and contractors and triple and quadruple the wages. They should be angry that the governor signed morals bills that are guaranteed to be challenged in court.

0

MyName 3 years, 2 months ago

There's a difference between a bad deal outright, and a bad deal that is still the best they could get. Also, most likely the owner was willing to give them a better deal on the rent because of the guaranteed 4 years of income.

0

Lana Christie-Hayes 3 years, 2 months ago

So.. Dec. 2008 to Dec 2012 is 4 years.. 6 months (180 days) more makes it June 2013!!! Someone please correct me if I'm living in another world here!!

0

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 2 months ago

Just out of curiosity; how would one go about mounting a civil lawsuit against the establishment of the "office of Faith Based Initiatives"? Taxpayer money (some of it Federal) is being spent for an "office" that clearly violates the Establishment clause of the US Constitution.

0

XTC 3 years, 2 months ago

Can someone help me understand the rental obligation for the SRS bldg. Is that $ 331,875. for one or both buildings? Is that for a 12 month period or other time frame? If the J/World saw the lease maybe they can anwser this.

0

lunacydetector 3 years, 2 months ago

come on people, they can walk. "1. Subject to termination for fiscal necessity," it's also an "amendment."

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

The 2008 addendum clearly states that they can only use the fiscal necessity excuse after 4 years and 180 days notice. The original clause says they can use fiscal necessity "if funds anticipated for the continued fulfillment of this lease agreement are at any time not forthcoming either through failure of the legislature to appropriate funds specifically budgeted for this lease or the discontinuance or material alteration of the program under which funds were provided". I don't think either of these conditions apply. Adequate funds do exist to pay the rent; they just want to cut here instead of elsewhere. Because we feel like it is not a reason allowed under the lease.

0

lunacydetector 3 years, 2 months ago

"1. Subject to termination for fiscal necessity," this comes first before the..."four (4) years of occupancy are guaranteed." it is "subject to" and takes precedence and is separated by a comma from the "four (4) years of occupancy are guaranteed." four years are guaranteed unless there is a discontinuance or material alteration of the program under which funds were provided. the lease shall end.

government leases always allow the government to walk away.

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is that the judge will find that the lease is valid and enforceable. The only opinion that counts is that judge's. Although I will point out again that there are very specific reasons why the lease can be broken for fiscal necessity, i.e. "if funds...are at any time not forthcoming either through failure of the legislature to appropriate funds specifically budgeted for this lease or the discontinuance or material alteration of the program under which funds were provided..." Neither of these applies, since SRS is choosing not to fulfill this lease rather than cutting spending elsewhere, and the programs have not been materially altered or ended. Also the state agreed to the lease revisions which occurred after the original lease. What you're essentially saying is that this is no different than, say you write a will. At some later point, you decide to cut someone out of the will that you had originally included so you write a new will. By your logic, the person would still inherit, since they were in the original will.

0

lunacydetector 3 years, 2 months ago

i found this on another blog i found about this very subject, kudos to mr. creanjeans http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=172&f=2497&t=7667365&p=5

The provisions for termination for "Fiscal Necessity" is just a version of the cash basis law, which essentially allows the state or municipaities to get out of any contract if the legislature or governing body does not appropriate the funds for it. The 4 year guarantee is subject to the termination for fiscal necessity, thus, they can get out of next years rent if the funds are not appropriated, which I assume would be the case, considering republican control. ...and fiscal necessity trumps guaranteed.

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

That's your opinion. It's the judge's opinion that counts.

0

ku_tailg8 3 years, 2 months ago

Lawrence shouldn't have to deal with this. I'm mad because I don't understand what the logic is behind this. I want Congress and Senate to get along and do something good, but quite frankly, they haven't done anything. I believe more in the inner democratic process then I do in sending someone to washington to do nothing for years on end. The house is a joke. I will not capitalize their name because all they do is fight for the next election. They never do anything!!!

0

thinkagain 3 years, 2 months ago

I think this will show what Schwada is made of, a true businessman. He will enforce the lease as he usually does. The new SRS Director may not understand that Lawrence, while home to the majority of the States Democrats, it is also the home to many businessmen and great entrepreneurs.

0

LHS56 3 years, 2 months ago

If the amendment does state...for fiscal necesssity.....then the State can terminate the lease. Lord (ooopss....sorry Browie) knows Kansas has a fiscal problem.

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

The 2008 addendum clearly states that they can only use the fiscal necessity excuse after 4 years and 180 days notice. The original clause says they can use fiscal necessity "if funds anticipated for the continued fulfillment of this lease agreement are at any time not forthcoming either through failure of the legislature to appropriate funds specifically budgeted for this lease or the discontinuance or material alteration of the program under which funds were provided".

0

justajoke 3 years, 2 months ago

I am so glad Schwada provided a copy of this. It just gives more proof that this isn't about money. It is just a political bunch of crap. But they still say the office is closing so the State will just continue to waste money are needless thing. How much can Brownback waste in a year??? This is the worst administration I have seen in many many years..

0

Carol Bowen 3 years, 2 months ago

What makes everyone think the state will honor its lease agreement? We haven't seen a whole lot of due process from this group.

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

I've no doubt they won't honor the lease, they'll be sued, and the taxpayers will end up paying the lease and some more hours to the hired legal guns, since apparently the AG is incapable of practicing law..

0

rhd99 3 years, 2 months ago

Yeah, Brownback knows SRS and building leases the same way he knows anything about abortions. ZILCH

0

notanota 3 years, 2 months ago

And don't forget that they'll use the further decrease in revenue from the lawsuit as an excuse to slash more SRS funding.

0

lunacydetector 3 years, 2 months ago

there isn't going to be any lawsuit. there is nothing there in regards to the lease unless you live in a fantasy world.

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

The fantasy is all on your side of the table I think. The cash basis law applies to municipalities, not state government. The state signed the lease, including the addendum, and will be found liable to honor it by the courts. You seriously think the owner, a prominent developer, is just going to say "Oh, okay. No problem I'm out $300K+?"

0

bd 3 years, 2 months ago

where is a WAAAMMMBBUULLAAAAAANNCCCEE when you need one???

0

Electrical8Eel 3 years, 2 months ago

When Bill Graves was governor, he purchased the old Security Benefit building; Security Benefit moved into a new building. Then, Graves purchased a new fleet of Chevrolets. And I'm not sure whether he or Kathleen Sebelius was responsible for repairs to the tunnel connecting the Robert Docking State Office Building to the statehouse. I do know repairs were needed, but to add furniture and places to congregate... was just plain ridiculous and a waste of tax payers money. Renovations are still ongoing at the capital. I'm sure Brownback is trying to fill up space that's going to waste in such a large building as the old Security Benefit bldg. Before Graves bought the building, state offices were scattered all the way out to Forbes, south of town. I remember wondering how much money the state saved before that major purchase, or should I say purchases (new cars). And still we pay for governors' inappropriate decisions.... and Brownback is just following the cycle and digging it deeper. It makes no sense to close the Lawrence SRS. There is no excuse.

I understand Brownback will be in town tomorrow for Studio 804's new building. If you go, please remember to respect the hard work and labor these graduates have put into the project over on Bob Billings (old 15th Street across from Meadowbrook Apts). They have had to endure an instructor who pits students against each other. Several students had to quit because they aren't allowed to work while working on an 804 project (this includes the fall semester). And their names have been removed from receiving credit for the project even though they worked beyond graduation back in May. And I doubt the Mexicans who helped with the masonry for $20/hr will be mentioned either. So if you go there to see Brownback, give loyalty to those who've earned it first. From there Brownback should understand how Douglas County truly feels. And citizens have a right to express how they feel. Or has that freedom been taken from us, too.

0

Electrical8Eel 3 years, 2 months ago

I forgot to mention... the ceremony for the 804 structure begins about 10 a.m.

0

heygary 3 years, 2 months ago

In the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) used an analogy to describe "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

From my vantage point, Mr. Tyler’s observation has been unsettlingly predictive of the path of our own experiment in Democracy.

In my youth I studied, with gratitude and reverence, the “bondage to liberty” sequence associated with the birth of our country. I believe I have lived through the “abundance to apathy” sequence. Now, as I watch the current Administration attempt to spend its way out of a recession, push forward massive bail out and entitlement programs, and socio-engineer Government intrusion/involvement in to most aspects of our lives, I cannot help but feel that the road to “dependence” has been charted.

0

Lana Christie-Hayes 3 years, 2 months ago

I have heard this before.. and it sure does appear to be much the case, quite unfortunately!!

0

Godot 3 years, 2 months ago

Too bad the school district gifted the East Heights building to Boys & Girls; otherwise they could have offered it, rent free, to the SRS.

0

Alceste 3 years, 2 months ago

Really, now? Where would you have relegated the "Boys & Girls" outfit to? It is what it is.....

0

Alceste 3 years, 2 months ago

Davis is grasping at straws and merely posing. He knows what time it is: He been being lazy representing the needs of Lawrence in Topeka. Try getting this professionally paid politician to present such an argument on a more individualized matter: He will plead ignorance; turn the voter over to a minion; and forget about you.

Meanwhile, Paul Davis will be making certain he gets PAID via KPERS for all the "work" he has done over the ever so many years of "service" he has given the "people" of Lawrence:

Here is the retirement package Davis signed up for....all by his little self......almost ten years back:

For the legislator listing all income - the daily rate, subsistence and allowance - this is how annualization is calculated:

•$88.66 (daily rate) x 31 (days) x 12 (months) = $32,981.52

•$123 (subsistence) x 31 (days) x 12 (months) = $45,756

•$7,083 non-session allowance.

Altogether, that equals $85,820.52, and that's the pay figure that would be used for that legislator retiring now.

The Senate president and House speaker are at the top of the pay scale, and annualized pay for those posts could be as high as $99,859.74, depending on their enrollment choices. As House Minority leader, I'm pretty sure Davis gets more than the "regular" Kansas Legislature political hack. Somebody correct Alceste if Alceste is incorrect.

Greed? 372 day year? Right....uh huh......good one..... One has to wonder if Davis figures his own personal finances from them fancy law offices he works at on a similar calendar!

0

bill_priff 3 years, 2 months ago

I'd say this all boils down to the meaning of "failure of the legislature to appropriate funds specifically budgeted for this lease" found in section 9 of the original lease. This is form language found in all Department of Administration leases.

I think it is going to be hard for SRS to make the case that the legislature failed to appropriate funds SPECIFICALLY budgeted for the Lawrence lease. The Secretary of SRS is choosing how to allocate the funds that the legislature has appropriated. The only case I could find (in a quick and dirty search) concerned a situation where the legislature did specifically fail to appropriate funds for a lease.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Bob Corkins would be the one providing the Secretary with legal advice. Surely he has some justification for believing that they can break the lease w/o any repercussions.

0

LadyJ 3 years, 2 months ago

Don't know if anybody has posted this, but it is the link for the Save our SRS online petition

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/saveoursrs/

0

Lana Christie-Hayes 3 years, 2 months ago

Dec. 2008 to Dec 2012 is 4 years..plus 6 months (180 days) more makes it June 2013! RIGHT??? Doesn't seem that hard to figure out! As for the legal defense to terminate the lease, well that could be another story.. but I would say there is definitely a very strong leg to stand on here to defend the closing of this office. ~~I would add, that I think ever having agreed to pay that much $ for rent on those buildings in the first place was irresponsible at best, but if this lease gives some power in defense of closing the office for at least another year and 1/2. That would allow plenty of time for the Lawrence community and its leaders can come up with more viable options and be able to keep the office in Lawrence.

0

Alceste 3 years, 2 months ago

larrytowngirl:

Please, get a life and realize the closure thus far is a done deal. If Lawrence can present Brownback & Company with a site or sites...all covering expenses such that the 400 large is all contained, so be it. The deal is, it can't be done. Contracts in this state mean nothing. Too the single line which negates the contract has been posted a couple of times by other people. Accept failure. It is the only option. It is occurring because the people of Lawrence have been arrogant and exclusive: NOT caring about other parts of this, sadly, hillbilly laden state. It is what it is......

Squirming around legal speak is going to get people nowhere. We're in Kansas and we it like it like that....especially when it relates to contracts with the state. It is what it is.

It does seem and appear that this entire saga is a very useful lesson for those that have been sleeping at the wheel and wearing them standard issue Lawrence rose colored glasses. WAKE UP!

0

Lana Christie-Hayes 3 years, 2 months ago

"It does seem and appear that this entire saga is a very useful lesson for those that have been sleeping at the wheel and wearing them standard issue Lawrence rose colored glasses. WAKE UP! "
While I'm "waking up" (and I can't tell you how much I hate being told that, for more personal reasons)... I am hoping that you will take a very long NAP!

0

Midnightblue1 3 years, 2 months ago

Hmmm. You kind of sound like a former disgruntled employee Alceste.

0

deec 3 years, 2 months ago

The private businesses mentioned by ol' wilbur are just that,for-profit businesses. SRS is not a business. It is a government agency. Your analogy is faulty.

0

Midnightblue1 3 years, 2 months ago

Let's see. Maybe if Walmart, Target, Vangent or Amarr provided assistance to the abused, elderly, poor and disabled. Apples and Oranges.

0

lunacydetector 3 years, 2 months ago

sebelius closed 62 s.r.s. offices....how many of those had their leases challenged by the landlord with the same canned language?

isn't paul davis an attorney?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.