3 ms·

While talking to someone in NYC government a while ago, they were lamenting the fact that there wasn't a unified system to view all of the city properties, who

While talking to someone in NYC government a while ago, they were lamenting the fact that there wasn't a unified system to view all of the city properties, who was occupying them, and how much vacant space there was within the buildings. Fully vacant buildings are one problem, but if you have 100 10,000 sq. ft. office buildings and only 5,000 sq. ft. each is being used, that is a completely different problem -- but equally important in terms of eliminating waste or saving money.

jeffdavis 13y ago
What is the incentive to say you're not using the space? It could force you to move to a more cramped location and extend your commute. And your agency's budget is now permanently lower, with no benefit you can see. Better to just fill up the space somehow; even it it means hiring do-nothing people.
- bhousel 13y ago
  Financial incentives could be set up between agencies. Say for example DOT has extra office space in one building and they can rent it out to DSNY for cheap. Then DOT gets money they wouldn't otherwise, and DSNY can pay less than they might pay to rent office space in a private building (This is just an example and I don't know if DSNY actually rents, but I know some agencies do). This works if you can relocate teams of people together (along with their stuff). Also advances in technology help here, as you can scan paperwork into a document management system and virtualize peoples machines so that it matters less where they are actually sitting. The city is doing some of this, but they move slowly.
  - jeffdavis 13y ago
    What you just described sounds like a lease, to me. I'm sure that's fairly common. The problem you run into here is: who gets the lease money? Why should the DOT get extra money just because they bought a building that is too big? The root of the problem is that budgets are based on perceived need with no downward pressure. The DOT has every incentive to make the perceived need higher, and leasing out half of their office space is not a good way to do that.
    - bhousel 13y ago
      To be honest, I don't know much about how this works in NYC government. I think DCAS is the agency that manages all of the city properties. So individual agencies might not have much control over their own space. DCAS might need to be the ones to establish the incentives.
bhousel 13y ago
That's a tricky problem to solve. I work with the NYC government on some projects, and they actually do seem to keep pretty decent track of all of the city's properties (at least, my experience with this is with the tax and finance people who assess every property in the city annually). Empty space is generally not fungible. A vacant upstairs floor of a police department couldn't be turned into elementary school classrooms, for example. But the NYC government owns a lot of properties, and rents space from private owners, and there are definitely inefficiencies that could be eliminated. Tracking all of this would be a fun project to work on.

jeffdavis 13y ago

What is the incentive to say you're not using the space? It could force you to move to a more cramped location and extend your commute. And your agency's budget is now permanently lower, with no benefit you can see. Better to just fill up the space somehow; even it it means hiring do-nothing people.

bhousel 13y ago
Financial incentives could be set up between agencies. Say for example DOT has extra office space in one building and they can rent it out to DSNY for cheap. Then DOT gets money they wouldn't otherwise, and DSNY can pay less than they might pay to rent office space in a private building (This is just an example and I don't know if DSNY actually rents, but I know some agencies do). This works if you can relocate teams of people together (along with their stuff). Also advances in technology help here, as you can scan paperwork into a document management system and virtualize peoples machines so that it matters less where they are actually sitting. The city is doing some of this, but they move slowly.
- jeffdavis 13y ago
  What you just described sounds like a lease, to me. I'm sure that's fairly common. The problem you run into here is: who gets the lease money? Why should the DOT get extra money just because they bought a building that is too big? The root of the problem is that budgets are based on perceived need with no downward pressure. The DOT has every incentive to make the perceived need higher, and leasing out half of their office space is not a good way to do that.
  - bhousel 13y ago
    To be honest, I don't know much about how this works in NYC government. I think DCAS is the agency that manages all of the city properties. So individual agencies might not have much control over their own space. DCAS might need to be the ones to establish the incentives.

bhousel 13y ago

That's a tricky problem to solve. I work with the NYC government on some projects, and they actually do seem to keep pretty decent track of all of the city's properties (at least, my experience with this is with the tax and finance people who assess every property in the city annually). Empty space is generally not fungible. A vacant upstairs floor of a police department couldn't be turned into elementary school classrooms, for example. But the NYC government owns a lot of properties, and rents space from private owners, and there are definitely inefficiencies that could be eliminated. Tracking all of this would be a fun project to work on.