I can.
Let me just raise one issue that did come up. One of the claims was that the private sector, if they were operating this, would be able to deliver a 20% improvement in operating costs. The evidence of that has not been forthcoming. We've asked to see a study that was reportedly looking at that issue, from DPW some years back, but we should understand—or at least, my understanding of the current situation is—that the private sector is already being contracted, in most cases, to provide the ongoing maintenance of these buildings. So one has to ask, where have they been hiding their gains, because these operating costs that we are seeing are supposedly the actual operating costs that are there.
The second issue, though, is if they in fact are in a position to realize those through their expertise, etc., then I would suggest building that into your estimates. Then why don't you assume the liability for the operating costs--and those aren't. This is a net-net-net lease, the netting out being anything that they can still leave on the hands of the government will be there. But if you really believed you could operate the thing at 20% less, you would offer a gross lease; then you would show the economies that you can attain, because then you would retain those economies.
In this case, where every incentive I see is one in which there is an incentive to raise the operating costs on the part of the owner, you can pass them on to the tenant, you can maintain the value of his asset, which you will own immediately, and enhance its value in 25, 35, or 45 years. Oh yes, by the way, there is also a management fee that's a percentage of those operating costs as well. All of those things would make me ask why these are going to be lower in this situation.
That's the story on the operating costs. And as I say, we haven't seen this study that supports the view that they will be 20% more efficient than the current situation.
Thank you.