Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies In addition to the commitments and contingencies disclosed elsewhere, the Company has the following commitments and contingencies. The Company is obligated under certain tenant leases, including leases for non-consolidated entities, to fund the expansion of the underlying leased properties. The Company, under certain circumstances, may guarantee the completion of base building improvements and the payment of tenant improvement allowances and lease commissions on behalf of its subsidiaries. From time to time, the Company is involved directly or indirectly in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management believes, based on currently available information, that the results of such proceedings, in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, but could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. In addition, the following two legal proceedings are pending: Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. and SPCP Group LLC v. Lexington Drake, L.P., et al. (Supreme Court of the State of New York-Index No. 603051/08). On June 30, 2006, one of the Company's property owner subsidiaries and a property owner subsidiary of a then co-investment program respectively sold to Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. (“Deutsche Bank”), (1) a $7,680 bankruptcy damage claim against Dana Corporation for $5,376 (“Farmington Hills claim”) and (2) a $7,727 bankruptcy damage claim against Dana Corporation for $5,680 (“Antioch claim”). Under the terms of the agreements covering the sale of the claims, which were guaranteed by the Company, the property owner subsidiaries are obligated to reimburse Deutsche Bank should the claim ever be disallowed, subordinated or otherwise impaired, to the extent of such disallowance, subordination or impairment, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of payment of the purchase price by Deutsche Bank. On October 12, 2007, Dana Corporation filed an objection to both claims. The Company assisted Deutsche Bank and the then holders of the claims in the preparation and filing of a response to the objection. Despite a belief by the Company that the objections were without merit, the holders of the claims, without the Company's consent, settled the allowed amount of the claims at $6,500 for the Farmington Hills claim and $7,200 for the Antioch claim in order to participate in a special settlement pool for allowed intangible unsecured claims and a preferred share rights offering having a value thought to be equal to, or greater than, the reduction of the claims. Deutsche Bank made a formal demand with respect to the Farmington Hills claim in the amount of $826 plus interest, but did not make a formal demand with respect to the Antioch claim. Following a rejection of the demand by the Company, on December 11, 2009, Deutsche Bank and the then holders of the claims filed a summons and complaint with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York for the Farmington Hills and Antioch claims, and claimed damages of $1,200 plus interest from the date of assignment at the rate of 10% per year and expenses, which the Company believes would be its maximum exposure. Together with the property owner subsidiaries, the Company answered the complaint on November 26, 2008 and served numerous discovery requests. After almost a year of inactivity, on March 18, 2010, the defendants and the plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment and related opposing and supporting motions. On November 22, 2010, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on their motion for summary judgment. The court referred the issue of damages to a special referee to determine the value of plaintiffs' participation in the preferred share rights offering and a settlement pool for allowed intangible unsecured claims so as to be taken into consideration with respect to computation of damages, if any. The Company filed a notice of appeal but withdrew such notice without prejudice to renew after final determination of the damages. The Company intends to appeal the court's ruling if the special referee determines there are damages. The special referee, upon the Company's request, issued a discovery order requiring the plaintiffs to provide requested discovery materials regarding the damages. On March 28, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the discovery order issued by the special referee. On May 17, 2011, the motion to vacate was denied and discovery on the damage issue continued. On March 12 and 13, 2012, hearings on the damage issue were held before the special referee. In April 2012, the plaintiffs and defendants submitted briefs on the damage issue to the special referee. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the claims for a variety of reasons, including that (1) after requiring and supporting the defense of the objections to the claims, the holders of the claims arbitrarily settled the claims for reasons based on factors other than the merits, (2) the holders of the claims voluntarily reduced the claims to participate in the preferred share rights offering and certain settlement pools that were not available to the defendants had they not sold the claims, (3) the contract language that supports the plaintiff's position was specifically negotiated out of the agreement covering the sale of the claims and (4) the plaintiffs have no damages. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas v. United States General Services Administration (United States District Court for the District of Kansas-Case Number 11-2400-JTM-KMH). On April 4, 2011, one of the Company's property owner subsidiaries entered into a lease termination with Applebee's Services, Inc., pursuant to which Applebee's Services, Inc. made a lease termination payment of $19,910 in October 2011 and vacated the Lenexa, Kansas facility in November 2011. Also on April 4, 2011, the Company's property owner subsidiary entered into a ten year lease with the United States General Services Administration ("GSA") for the same facility. On April 15, 2011, an unsuccessful bidder for the GSA lease filed a protest with the United States Government Accountability Office ("GAO") protesting the award of the lease to the Company's property owner subsidiary. On July 22, 2011, after a full briefing of the protest, the GAO denied the protest. However, prior to the GAO ruling on July 19, 2011, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County, Kansas City filed a claim against the GSA requesting, among other things, an injunction against the award of the ten year lease. On March 21, 2012, the District Court issued a memorandum opinion transferring the case to the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Company has intervened and is monitoring this claim; however, the Company does not anticipate any impact to its financial position or results of operations from this claim.

Commitments and Contingencies

In addition to the commitments and contingencies disclosed elsewhere, the Company has the following commitments and contingencies.

The Company is obligated under certain tenant leases, including leases for non-consolidated entities, to fund the expansion of the underlying leased properties. The Company, under certain circumstances, may guarantee the completion of base building improvements and the payment of tenant improvement allowances and lease commissions on behalf of its subsidiaries.

From time to time, the Company is involved directly or indirectly in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Management believes, based on currently available information, that the results of such proceedings, in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, but could be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. In addition, the following two legal proceedings are pending:

Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. and SPCP Group LLC v. Lexington Drake, L.P., et al. (Supreme Court of the State of New York-Index No. 603051/08). On June 30, 2006, one of the Company's property owner subsidiaries and a property owner subsidiary of a then co-investment program respectively sold to Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. (“Deutsche Bank”), (1) a $7,680 bankruptcy damage claim against Dana Corporation for $5,376 (“Farmington Hills claim”) and (2) a $7,727 bankruptcy damage claim against Dana Corporation for $5,680 (“Antioch claim”). Under the terms of the agreements covering the sale of the claims, which were guaranteed by the Company, the property owner subsidiaries are obligated to reimburse Deutsche Bank should the claim ever be disallowed, subordinated or otherwise impaired, to the extent of such disallowance, subordination or impairment, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of payment of the purchase price by Deutsche Bank. On October 12, 2007, Dana Corporation filed an objection to both claims. The Company assisted Deutsche Bank and the then holders of the claims in the preparation and filing of a response to the objection. Despite a belief by the Company that the objections were without merit, the holders of the claims, without the Company's consent, settled the allowed amount of the claims at $6,500 for the Farmington Hills claim and $7,200 for the Antioch claim in order to participate in a special settlement pool for allowed intangible unsecured claims and a preferred share rights offering having a value thought to be equal to, or greater than, the reduction of the claims. Deutsche Bank made a formal demand with respect to the Farmington Hills claim in the amount of $826 plus interest, but did not make a formal demand with respect to the Antioch claim. Following a rejection of the demand by the Company, on December 11, 2009, Deutsche Bank and the then holders of the claims filed a summons and complaint with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York for the Farmington Hills and Antioch claims, and claimed damages of $1,200 plus interest from the date of assignment at the rate of 10% per year and expenses, which the Company believes would be its maximum exposure.

Together with the property owner subsidiaries, the Company answered the complaint on November 26, 2008 and served numerous discovery requests. After almost a year of inactivity, on March 18, 2010, the defendants and the plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment and related opposing and supporting motions. On November 22, 2010, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on their motion for summary judgment. The court referred the issue of damages to a special referee to determine the value of plaintiffs' participation in the preferred share rights offering and a settlement pool for allowed intangible unsecured claims so as to be taken into consideration with respect to computation of damages, if any.

The Company filed a notice of appeal but withdrew such notice without prejudice to renew after final determination of the damages. The Company intends to appeal the court's ruling if the special referee determines there are damages. The special referee, upon the Company's request, issued a discovery order requiring the plaintiffs to provide requested discovery materials regarding the damages. On March 28, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the discovery order issued by the special referee. On May 17, 2011, the motion to vacate was denied and discovery on the damage issue continued. On March 12 and 13, 2012, hearings on the damage issue were held before the special referee. In April 2012, the plaintiffs and defendants submitted briefs on the damage issue to the special referee.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the claims for a variety of reasons, including that (1) after requiring and supporting the defense of the objections to the claims, the holders of the claims arbitrarily settled the claims for reasons based on factors other than the merits, (2) the holders of the claims voluntarily reduced the claims to participate in the preferred share rights offering and certain settlement pools that were not available to the defendants had they not sold the claims, (3) the contract language that supports the plaintiff's position was specifically negotiated out of the agreement covering the sale of the claims and (4) the plaintiffs have no damages.

Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas v. United States General Services Administration (United States District Court for the District of Kansas-Case Number 11-2400-JTM-KMH). On April 4, 2011, one of the Company's property owner subsidiaries entered into a lease termination with Applebee's Services, Inc., pursuant to which Applebee's Services, Inc. made a lease termination payment of $19,910 in October 2011 and vacated the Lenexa, Kansas facility in November 2011. Also on April 4, 2011, the Company's property owner subsidiary entered into a ten year lease with the United States General Services Administration ("GSA") for the same facility. On April 15, 2011, an unsuccessful bidder for the GSA lease filed a protest with the United States Government Accountability Office ("GAO") protesting the award of the lease to the Company's property owner subsidiary. On July 22, 2011, after a full briefing of the protest, the GAO denied the protest. However, prior to the GAO ruling on July 19, 2011, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County, Kansas City filed a claim against the GSA requesting, among other things, an injunction against the award of the ten year lease. On March 21, 2012, the District Court issued a memorandum opinion transferring the case to the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Company has intervened and is monitoring this claim; however, the Company does not anticipate any impact to its financial position or results of operations from this claim.