DMV if feds leave

[Anonymous]

Neighbor works for a big fed agency. They're still WFH full time for most staff, however, the other day my neighbor just stated that they're considering a 'hotel' style kind of office space for anyone who wants to use the office, but management doesn't envision office use at the agency he works at ever going back to the way it was. Mangament even suggested that future hirees would be offered to WFH from wherever and that employees may eventually be given the option for permanent remote work.

The point being here that if this huge agency is considering a decenralized model, and this model also offers up the opportunity for the Federal govt to save huge amounts of money by not paying leases for office space and all of the costs associated with running offices, what is the fate of the DMV if more agencies do the same?

All you hear are people bragging that the DMV is 'recession resistant' because Feds are located here. And all people in the region do is brag about how their homes values never go down because the govt is located here. Well, what happens when the govt starts to not have to be located here? If this trend takes off big time, I feel like it'd mean other big ideas like Thrive 2050 for MoCo would be a massive mistake. They'll overdevelop the whole county based on assumptions that didn't pan out. Many people won't have to be tied down to this region if Fed agencies decentralize and people are free to go find much better opportunities for lower cost of living areas. The result will be a whole bunch of very expensive vacant housing that only helps to crater property values and the county wasted billions in development on Thrive. The tax base would crumble too if feds are allowed to decentralize. The DMV would no longer be resistant to recessions either.

[Anonymous]

Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neighbor works for a big fed agency. They're still WFH full time for most staff, however, the other day my neighbor just stated that they're considering a 'hotel' style kind of office space for anyone who wants to use the office, but management doesn't envision office use at the agency he works at ever going back to the way it was. Mangament even suggested that future hirees would be offered to WFH from wherever and that employees may eventually be given the option for permanent remote work.

The point being here that if this huge agency is considering a decenralized model, and this model also offers up the opportunity for the Federal govt to save huge amounts of money by not paying leases for office space and all of the costs associated with running offices, what is the fate of the DMV if more agencies do the same?

All you hear are people bragging that the DMV is 'recession resistant' because Feds are located here. And all people in the region do is brag about how their homes values never go down because the govt is located here. Well, what happens when the govt starts to not have to be located here? If this trend takes off big time, I feel like it'd mean other big ideas like Thrive 2050 for MoCo would be a massive mistake. They'll overdevelop the whole county based on assumptions that didn't pan out. Many people won't have to be tied down to this region if Fed agencies decentralize and people are free to go find much better opportunities for lower cost of living areas. The result will be a whole bunch of very expensive vacant housing that only helps to crater property values and the county wasted billions in development on Thrive. The tax base would crumble too if feds are allowed to decentralize. The DMV would no longer be resistant to recessions either.

You are right. But I don't think it will be a catastrophic as this. Instead, it will cause a slowing of growth, a failure to maintain such high real estate values. But it won't become like a post-industrial ghost town.

[Anonymous]

All feds are not going to leave.

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that if this happens it will be a very gradual process and that ultimately could be a good thing for everyone involved, including people who want to live in the DMV. Growth growth growth is not sustainable particularly for people whose wages do not endlessly grow.

[Anonymous]

Some fed jobs may be more flexible. They will always continue to have at least a small office space for meetings and high level employees to have offices.

There are also many fed jobs located outside of DC. Some are remote!

There are many, many private companies that fuel the DMV, too.

I think it’s know where you were going with this but it’s a gross overgeneralization. It’s not all about the one guy in the one agency you are speaking with and then ascribing his comments to the entire DC federal framework.

[Anonymous]

Trump moved some agencies to the midwest and almost everyone quit. They are trying to reconstitute that agency back in DC but the damage was done.

DC was created to be the seat of government. As long as the main agencies, the Captiol, White House and Supreme Court are here, so too will all the support services, big consulting etc.

[Anonymous]

Only something like 20-25% of federal jobs are located in the DC region. So the vast majority are already spread across the country. Agencies headquarters won’t be leaving because….wait for it…..heads of agencies are appointed by the President and POTUS is in DC. So you’ll still have the core high-level functions of the agency - policy making, legal, congressional relations, interagency work, budgetary - happening here in DC and in-person.

Like DOE, I envision a shrinking of office footprints and more demand created in the suburbs. The far outer exurbs / 2nd home locations around the region are going to benefit from a permanent increase in values; people will tolerate longer commutes only 1-2x per week if it means more space/land/access to nature.

But no, the federal jobs are not going to leave this area. Especially the most highly paid and important jobs. People who want the “brass ring” will need to put in their time in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump moved some agencies to the midwest and almost everyone quit. They are trying to reconstitute that agency back in DC but the damage was done.

DC was created to be the seat of government. As long as the main agencies, the Captiol, White House and Supreme Court are here, so too will all the support services, big consulting etc.

That is because it required moving to the Midwest...We are talking about living wherever here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

Neighbor works for an agency bigger than DOE.

[Anonymous]

I don’t work for the fed, but l think many types of work and personalities are poorly suited to full time remote. I’m not an old white man BTW (could hear that accusation coming). I think the next 12 months things will become more clear for longer term future of work, but every company / agency is working it out still and seeing the good and bad of WFH.

[Anonymous]

Saw an interesting piece on LinkedIn about how opening up more jobs to remote could benefit trailing spouses in military, state department etc. Seems like a no brained that the most talented program manager or coder or whatever should be hired regardless of where they are. I hope more remote will bring in more talented people to work in government in situations where geographic availability is no longer the dominant criteria.

[Anonymous]

DC seems to be the most WFH major city and is around 47% of 2019 back to the office. Our agency is still at max telework and is acting like it's permanent - but I think in another couple years they'll have come to their senses and returned to the office. There will be more permanent remote employees than in 2019 but the majority will come into the office for work - the tradeoff isn't worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All feds are not going to leave.

The Federal footprint in DC is declining. That is undeniable. And the future is not positive. 40% of GSA’s downtown lease portfolio is set to expire before 2025.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t work for the fed, but l think many types of work and personalities are poorly suited to full time remote. I’m not an old white man BTW (could hear that accusation coming). I think the next 12 months things will become more clear for longer term future of work, but every company / agency is working it out still and seeing the good and bad of WFH.

+1000

I've worked remotely for a decade and it's long been known to have serious drawbacks and only works for a certain subset of people. It's not for everyone. And it shouldn't be.