I think it will vary by situation. Certainly the accrual basis of accounting treats leased tangible capital assets, as we call them, the same way as owned, if you're going to be leasing it for a very long time. In fact, we call it a capital lease; it treats them exactly the same way.
I think you would get that information better on a full accrual basis of accounting. If you're just reflecting the lease payments each year and you don't have a full appreciation of the entire cost of the building, different management decisions are going to be made. If you're in a building that's being maintained properly, then your lease payments should be including some of that maintenance expense. It might be buried in the lease expense.
Certainly owning does carry with it the requirement to maintain. You have the choice then of whether you maintain it or not, and therefore whether costs go through or whether this infrastructure deficit is building.
I think all I can say for accrual accounting is that it should give you better information to know whether leasing or buying is the right impact on the government at that particular time. It should give you full information, and there shouldn't be an advantage, because of the accounting, of going one way or the other.