Re: RFPET Recommendation

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 11:36:45AM -0700, Joe Pezzillo wrote:
> 
> I don't remember it being my idea as much as the group's consensus. I  
> recall we might have discussed the terms "rent" and "lease" but the  
> key message was that we don't want DRE equipment used, so make any  
> solution for 2004 temporary.
> 
> As for leasing, I'm not claiming to be a financial whiz, but the  
> vendor doesn't have to be the lessor, there are third party companies  
> that finance leases of equipment. More of that voluntary blindness  

A lease is not a rental. The best analogy in real estate is a seller
'taking back' a mortgage from the buyer rather than the buyer getting
a mortgage loan from a bank. In the case of a house, you can, of 
course, walk away from the deal after 15 years on a 30 year mortgage,
it is really not a smart idea to do so. And in the case of a home
purchase, there is all sorts of good government support for the
market in houses that pretty much guarantees that the house will 
have some market value if the owner needs to liquidate, often enough
to pay off the loan. 

In a third party lease, the third party buys the stuff and pays for
it.  He has to believe that he can sell the stuff for what he is owed
he spent to buy it, in case the user decides to walk away from the
deal. Third party leaseing of uncertified voting equipment is not a 
good business to be in, IMHO.

In short, my best analogy is not a very good one, but it is the best
of a bad lot.



---
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx