The Court of Auditors criticizes the State's real estate policy

While upgrading standards and investments in the State's immense real estate portfolio (192.550 buildings) will cost between 140 and 150 billion euros by 2050, "the absence of a formalized strategy which has characterized real estate policy since cannot last for long", criticize the financial magistrates.

This warning, launched in a report produced at the request of the National Assembly, comes after the government promised to reduce state office space by 25%, to lower them from 24 to 16 square meters per public employee. .

A rationalization effort welcomed by the Court of Auditors, but which "will require much stronger interministerial authority and steering than those which exist today", she immediately adds.

Despite the creation in 2016 of a dedicated Real Estate Directorate (DIE), the report underlines the persistent "primacy" of ministries over the administration in the management of the State's real estate stock.

“Although the DIE represents the owner State and defends its interests, in reality, it has little authority vis-à-vis the occupying ministries”, which keep control over “the majority of real estate loans”.

The Minister for Public Accounts, Thomas Cazenave, certainly proposed in November to create a public property company, to which the ministries should pay rent, since they occupy state buildings.

A proposal taken up by the Court.

“This scenario constitutes a major change (and) requires organizing the transfer of ownership of goods and building a sustainable economic and budgetary model,” she nevertheless warns.

Fixing the amount of rents "would require delicate negotiation", continues the Court, which therefore proposes two alternative scenarios to reform the State's real estate policy.

The first consists of strengthening the prerogatives of the DIE by associating it more with budgetary discussions, while letting the ministries manage the credits allocated to real estate policy. A “simple” scenario, but which “does not guarantee the defense of the interests of the owner State”.

The second option would consist of entrusting a structure placed under the authority of the DIE, rather than the ministries, with the maintenance and upgrading of state buildings.

Enough to limit the dispersion of real estate skills between ministries, even if this scenario is “complex” and more time-consuming than the first.