That is a fair question, and that absolutely was considered. It comes back to the theme of ownership and how owners determine how they invest money in their buildings.
I will give you a very fundamental example. A builder builds a home. The homeowner decides to spend all sorts of money changing it, holding back, waiting to decide if he wants to do something different, and suddenly it's 30% more expensive than if it had been left to the builder alone to build it. The fact of the matter is that users are not efficient in how they make decisions and what they spend their money on.
I suppose if you started to engage professional asset managers who truly could make decisions on where the money was spent most effectively, it's possible you could restructure the whole organization. But that opportunity has been in place for many years, and clearly that hasn't been done.
The government has indicated to us that there is not an ability to make those decisions effectively. With the bureaucracy required to make those decisions slowing things down and therefore being more costly, the private sector is deemed to be more efficient at doing that. Your $200 million could maybe be done by the private sector for $100 million. That is part of the objective of selling and leasing back and having private sector management.