| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
From BB's link:
| Quote: |
The United States has agreed to sell its embassy building in Grosvenor Square, Mayfair, to Qatari Diar, the sovereign wealth-backed developer, for an undisclosed sum.
The US State Department said that it will sell the Chancery building, home to the US Embassy in Britain for almost half a century, to the property investment company owned by the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA).
The building was worth an estimated �500 million at the peak of the market in July 2007 when Qatari Diar was first linked with a possible purchase. However, the building is now thought to be worth less after a 45 per cent decline in commercial property values.
|
Ok. It was worth 275 million. We're still far from 1 billion.
Also, did Clinton mix up lease and own? I'd figure she'd have a good working knowledge of issues related to real estate. |
I really don't know if Clinton is right or wrong, but the 275 million is in Pounds while the 1 billion is in dollars. Obviously converting the pounds into dollars is still going to be short, but she said they are selling 11 sites and possibly the embassy site is only one of those 11 sites. Possibly she is right. I don't know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How about it mises? Have you rethought your knee jerk assertion that Clinton was blowing smoke up the arse? Is it possible for you to admit that she might be right and that she was not the one blowing smoke up the arse? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
She sold the rights to leases for 1 billion? I don't think so, especially when BB said:
| Quote: |
| No, according to some other article I read, the US leases the property from the British gov't (for hardly anything). It is the only US embassy that isn't owned by the US gov't. So I guess the US sold the lease to the qatari developer? |
275GBP is 411USD. Still need another 600 million.
You suggested that the 411 might be the value of 1 of the 11 buildings.
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/US-embassy-in-London-likely-to-be-listed/16006
| Quote: |
| There have been reports that the US embassy is considering the sale of its long-lease (said to be worth �90m) and might move out of central London, possibly to Isleworth in the west of the capital or Greenwich in the south-east. |
So, who knows? It is possible that Clinton is telling something near the truth. Even then, a 1billion dollar building in London is completely unreasonable given the state of the US finances at home. Maybe Clinton should tour the City Center project in Vegas.
Lastly, how many government projects come in at or around budget? How long before "cost overruns" due to cost-plus contracting, corruption and the rest start adding up?
To save money the US should downsize the embassy. And foreign aid. And the wars. And the drug wars. And the bailouts. And and and.
This is how so many people ruin themselves financially. 1billion is just "x%" of the total US budget. So you go to the store and see some 120$ shoes. Well, it's only 120$. Then you go to dinner cause it's only 40$. Then you lease a car, cause it's only 300$. Before you know it, there is no money left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
This is how so many people ruin themselves financially. 1billion is just "x%" of the total US budget. So you go to the store and see some 120$ shoes. Well, it's only 120$. |
America has some very expensive shoes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQZrC3ljtuM&feature=related |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeonmunka
Joined: 05 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe she meant, '... properties that we rent out.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JD_Tiberius
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| London is helluva expensive in terms of land prices. I can guarantee you that the stupid 100ft moat makes up at least half the cost for the new building as thats alot of real estate space thats getting wasted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JD_Tiberius wrote: |
| London is helluva expensive in terms of land prices. I can guarantee you that the stupid 100ft moat makes up at least half the cost for the new building as thats alot of real estate space thats getting wasted. |
I guarantee that you are wrong because the pond takes up less than 25% of the land .
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/images/new_embassy/KT-07.jpg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JD_Tiberius
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thats not a 100ft moat then, its...a pond. Trust Fox News to be intellectually dishonest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
She sold the rights to leases for 1 billion? I don't think so, especially when BB said:
| Quote: |
| No, according to some other article I read, the US leases the property from the British gov't (for hardly anything). It is the only US embassy that isn't owned by the US gov't. So I guess the US sold the lease to the qatari developer? |
275GBP is 411USD. Still need another 600 million.
|
"Another U.S diplomatic building on Grosvenor Square, the Navy Annex, was put on the market last year for more than $180 million." http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-10-02-london-embassy_N.htm
Ok, now we're up to $600 million and that's for only 2 of the 11 sites mentioned. Admit it mises, your comment that Clinton was blowing smoke up the arse is based on nothing more than your ignorance of London real estate. Yes, leases can be sold. and yes, the US has a considerable amount of very expensive property that it is selling off so that it can consolidate its operations in a more modern and secure facility. It makes good sense. Arguing that the US should scale back its London operations in no way justifies your" smoke up the arse" comment. She was correct and you and your source were the ones incorrectly mocking her knowledge of real estate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
