If I were in the Legislature — and I’m glad I’m not, these days — I’d be asking some questions about the office building the state plans to have built at the Department of Transportation site off Capitol Street.

It makes sense to locate a state office building on the DOT site. It does not make sense to have a vehicle maintenance operation where fumes from spray-painting trucks can be sucked in to the air intake of the offices of the Maine State Retirement System, which occurred a few years back. The site has great value because it is so close to the State House and the Cross State Office Building. DOT vehicle maintenance can be carried out most anywhere away from the heart of state government. A prime office location is not required.

So why does the state want to lease space in a building built and operated by a real estate developer rather than own the building? The state can borrow funds to pay for the building more cheaply than a private business can, because it can sell bonds, the interest from which is exempt from income tax. We have a finance authority designed to do just that.

A developer can’t sell tax exempt bonds, and has to borrow money at a higher interest rate.

Forward-looking governments and private businesses don’t build conventional structures these days. They build structures that are carbon-neutral, or nearly so. That means that the building is super-insulated and has solar panels that can generate the electricity needed to operate the building, lowering costs in the long run. Heat pumps can be used to both heat and cool the building.

Moreover, a developer would offer the cheapest structure that would meet the specifications. Probably heated with cheap natural gas. Retro-fitting an old-fashioned building that is inefficient is more expensive in the long run than building it right in the first place.

Are the building specifications drafted so that a developer would have to build a carbon-neutral structure? We don’t know, but probably not.

It is true that a privately owned and operated office building would pay property taxes to the city, but that should not be the tail that wags the dog. A responsible state government would make a payment to the city in lieu of taxes.

The state should be a leader in demonstrating that it is practical to construct a building that minimizes the use of fossil fuels that contribute to global warming. Is the state missing an opportunity to set an example for private enterprise here?

A forward-thinking legislature would find the answers.

Jon Lund of Hallowell is a former four-term state legislator.