When they do the analysis of the various options, they do it essentially on an accrual basis, because they look at the cost over the long term and they do that analysis.
In many cases, the purchase option was the most cost effective. We asked why they didn't pick that, and they said because they didn't have enough money in their appropriation to do it. The cash, which is essentially the appropriation that is available in a year, is driving those decisions.
What we're trying to argue is that if there was kind of a capital appropriation, and you can say, yes, you have enough money to buy this building over the term, that might change behaviour and people might take the more cost-effective option. It's the funding that's available to them in a given year that is making them take an option that is more expensive in the long term.