USDA Scientists refusing to move/relocate to Missouri

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to move to KC if I could keep my same salary. It is so much less expensive:

Well apparently 90% of scientists are disinclining to do so. What makes you so different from your neighbors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

This is disengenious. They're talking relocating the actual agency headquarters to the communities outside Kansas City in either Kansas or Missouri.

You know how much land per a square mile in those areas are? It's $600,000 per an ACRE right on top of the airport.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/8800-NW-112th-St-Kansas-City-MO/15777214/

Contrast that to near Dulles or Reagan - It's $1,000,000 per an acre all the way out in Manassas.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/9701-Hornbaker-Rd-Manassas-VA/13869341/

The USDA could build out an entire new headquarters facilities, including lower operational and building costs, for less than 1/2th the cost it'd take to do so in the DMV.

But they already have a functioning HQ here. There is no cost to “build out” that which exists. It’s both a waste of money and an attempt to dismantle this agency and the Federal workforce. All while increasing private contractors, lobbyists, and giving big jobs and appointments to undeserving/unqualified family, friends, and big donors that this administration favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

This is disengenious. They're talking relocating the actual agency headquarters to the communities outside Kansas City in either Kansas or Missouri.

You know how much land per a square mile in those areas are? It's $600,000 per an ACRE right on top of the airport.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/8800-NW-112th-St-Kansas-City-MO/15777214/

Contrast that to near Dulles or Reagan - It's $1,000,000 per an acre all the way out in Manassas.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/9701-Hornbaker-Rd-Manassas-VA/13869341/

The USDA could build out an entire new headquarters facilities, including lower operational and building costs, for less than 1/2th the cost it'd take to do so in the DMV.

But they already have a functioning HQ here. There is no cost to “build out” that which exists. It’s both a waste of money and an attempt to dismantle this agency and the Federal workforce. All while increasing private contractors, lobbyists, and giving big jobs and appointments to undeserving/unqualified family, friends, and big donors that this administration favors.

Functioning and operational are two different things.

a) The USDA building is 80 years old and is probably in need of heavy refurbishment.

b) Its in PRIME real estate territory. If the feds sold it for development, they'd clear at least a billion dollars.

c) The USDA hq interior in the same condition as this lovely federal building (housing the EPA) which is also looking at repair costs.

[Anonymous]

^All of that is because GSA cannot adequately maintain federal buildings. The same would be true for a building built in KCMO. My division was in a federal building downtown and we couldn't get enough funding to fix a broken window that a tourist threw a rock through. There were roaches and sewage backups and the water wasn't potable. We moved to a leased building and there's a coffee pot in the breakroom even. It's night and day how nice our leased building is versus the one ran by GSA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just heard they've been told they have until September 30th to relocate.

How long have they known? Because selling a house in less than 60 days when you had no previous plans to do so is INSANE.

It looks like this was announced on June 13th. That said, you don't have to sell a house and move by September 30th (which would be ~3 1/2 months) you just need to show up for work.

Here is another interesting point from the press release announcing this: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2019/06/13/secretary-perdue-announces-kansas-city-region-location-ers-and-nifa

It will save over $300 million over 15 years.

USDA conducted a Cost Benefit Analysis and conservative estimates show a savings of nearly $300 million nominally over a 15-year lease term on employment costs and rent or about $20 million per year, which will allow more funding for research of critical needs like rural prosperity and agricultural competitiveness, and for programs and employees to be retained in the long run, even in the face of tightening budgets. On top of that, state and local governments offered generous relocation incentives packages totaling more than $26 million. Finally, this relocation will give USDA the opportunity to attract a diverse staff with training and interest in agriculture. To learn more about USDA's Cost Benefit Analysis, you may view the USDA Cost Benefit Analysis document (PDF, 331 KB).

“We did not undertake these relocations lightly, and we are doing it to enhance long-term sustainability and success of these agencies. The considerable taxpayer savings will allow us to be more efficient and improve our ability to retain more employees in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just heard they've been told they have until September 30th to relocate.

How long have they known? Because selling a house in less than 60 days when you had no previous plans to do so is INSANE.

It looks like this was announced on June 13th. That said, you don't have to sell a house and move by September 30th (which would be ~3 1/2 months) you just need to show up for work.

Here is another interesting point from the press release announcing this: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2019/06/13/secretary-perdue-announces-kansas-city-region-location-ers-and-nifa

It will save over $300 million over 15 years.

USDA conducted a Cost Benefit Analysis and conservative estimates show a savings of nearly $300 million nominally over a 15-year lease term on employment costs and rent or about $20 million per year, which will allow more funding for research of critical needs like rural prosperity and agricultural competitiveness, and for programs and employees to be retained in the long run, even in the face of tightening budgets. On top of that, state and local governments offered generous relocation incentives packages totaling more than $26 million. Finally, this relocation will give USDA the opportunity to attract a diverse staff with training and interest in agriculture. To learn more about USDA's Cost Benefit Analysis, you may view the USDA Cost Benefit Analysis document (PDF, 331 KB).

“We did not undertake these relocations lightly, and we are doing it to enhance long-term sustainability and success of these agencies. The considerable taxpayer savings will allow us to be more efficient and improve our ability to retain more employees in the long run.

Bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^All of that is because GSA cannot adequately maintain federal buildings. The same would be true for a building built in KCMO. My division was in a federal building downtown and we couldn't get enough funding to fix a broken window that a tourist threw a rock through. There were roaches and sewage backups and the water wasn't potable. We moved to a leased building and there's a coffee pot in the breakroom even. It's night and day how nice our leased building is versus the one ran by GSA.

Uh huh, and I'm betting that leased building is costing the federal government a $1M a month to rent for you. The 'solution' would be to re-build federal buildings from the ground up in new facilities either in-town or in local relocations like the FBI tried to do with PG County. But that would mean billions - costs to buy land or tear down entire city blocks of federal buildings, contractor costs and bids, regulations processing for new developments, temporary relocation of employees....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just heard they've been told they have until September 30th to relocate.

How long have they known? Because selling a house in less than 60 days when you had no previous plans to do so is INSANE.

It looks like this was announced on June 13th. That said, you don't have to sell a house and move by September 30th (which would be ~3 1/2 months) you just need to show up for work.

Here is another interesting point from the press release announcing this: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2019/06/13/secretary-perdue-announces-kansas-city-region-location-ers-and-nifa

It will save over $300 million over 15 years.

USDA conducted a Cost Benefit Analysis and conservative estimates show a savings of nearly $300 million nominally over a 15-year lease term on employment costs and rent or about $20 million per year, which will allow more funding for research of critical needs like rural prosperity and agricultural competitiveness, and for programs and employees to be retained in the long run, even in the face of tightening budgets. On top of that, state and local governments offered generous relocation incentives packages totaling more than $26 million. Finally, this relocation will give USDA the opportunity to attract a diverse staff with training and interest in agriculture. To learn more about USDA's Cost Benefit Analysis, you may view the USDA Cost Benefit Analysis document (PDF, 331 KB).

“We did not undertake these relocations lightly, and we are doing it to enhance long-term sustainability and success of these agencies. The considerable taxpayer savings will allow us to be more efficient and improve our ability to retain more employees in the long run.

You don't have to sell a house and move- you just need to show up for work.

And where will you live? Where will your kids go to school and live? What about your spouse's job? The federal government doesn't provide job help to spouses even if they're also federal employees. Are you suggesting spouses would just move and dump their kids on their spouse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^All of that is because GSA cannot adequately maintain federal buildings. The same would be true for a building built in KCMO. My division was in a federal building downtown and we couldn't get enough funding to fix a broken window that a tourist threw a rock through. There were roaches and sewage backups and the water wasn't potable. We moved to a leased building and there's a coffee pot in the breakroom even. It's night and day how nice our leased building is versus the one ran by GSA.

Uh huh, and I'm betting that leased building is costing the federal government a $1M a month to rent for you. The 'solution' would be to re-build federal buildings from the ground up in new facilities either in-town or in local relocations like the FBI tried to do with PG County. But that would mean billions - costs to buy land or tear down entire city blocks of federal buildings, contractor costs and bids, regulations processing for new developments, temporary relocation of employees....

I'm sure it is. That's part of my point. If the government MAINTAINED the facilitates it already owns, it would be cheaper in the long run. You wouldn't believe how clean my new building is. We even have a janitor who picks up my trash daily. Before we were required to dump our own trash once a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just heard they've been told they have until September 30th to relocate.

How long have they known? Because selling a house in less than 60 days when you had no previous plans to do so is INSANE.

It looks like this was announced on June 13th. That said, you don't have to sell a house and move by September 30th (which would be ~3 1/2 months) you just need to show up for work.

Here is another interesting point from the press release announcing this: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2019/06/13/secretary-perdue-announces-kansas-city-region-location-ers-and-nifa

It will save over $300 million over 15 years.

USDA conducted a Cost Benefit Analysis and conservative estimates show a savings of nearly $300 million nominally over a 15-year lease term on employment costs and rent or about $20 million per year, which will allow more funding for research of critical needs like rural prosperity and agricultural competitiveness, and for programs and employees to be retained in the long run, even in the face of tightening budgets. On top of that, state and local governments offered generous relocation incentives packages totaling more than $26 million. Finally, this relocation will give USDA the opportunity to attract a diverse staff with training and interest in agriculture. To learn more about USDA's Cost Benefit Analysis, you may view the USDA Cost Benefit Analysis document (PDF, 331 KB).

“We did not undertake these relocations lightly, and we are doing it to enhance long-term sustainability and success of these agencies. The considerable taxpayer savings will allow us to be more efficient and improve our ability to retain more employees in the long run.

Bullshit.

PP for the 'you don't have to sell a house and move by September 30th (which would be ~3 1/2 months) you just need to show up for work...'

Meaning they would have to rent a house/apartment for the fed living in Kansas City and maintain their home/apartment for their family in the DMV in the meantime? Even Congressmen and women struggle to pay for effectively two households like that...

[Anonymous]

It's projected to be a fast move, the spouse has to find work, you have to find someplace to live and someone to buy your house in the DC area.

And you have to pay for it all yourself. On a federal salary, while still living in the DC area and replacing your spouses lost income.

[Anonymous]

So are their salaries being lowered? If you make 100k here, is your new salary only going to be like 65k? Wouldn't that mess up retirement contributions and pensions? Even future social security amounts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's projected to be a fast move, the spouse has to find work, you have to find someplace to live and someone to buy your house in the DC area.

And you have to pay for it all yourself. On a federal salary, while still living in the DC area and replacing your spouses lost income.

Ooh they aren't even paying for the move to missouri?! A move like that is easily 20-50k

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^All of that is because GSA cannot adequately maintain federal buildings. The same would be true for a building built in KCMO. My division was in a federal building downtown and we couldn't get enough funding to fix a broken window that a tourist threw a rock through. There were roaches and sewage backups and the water wasn't potable. We moved to a leased building and there's a coffee pot in the breakroom even. It's night and day how nice our leased building is versus the one ran by GSA.

Uh huh, and I'm betting that leased building is costing the federal government a $1M a month to rent for you. The 'solution' would be to re-build federal buildings from the ground up in new facilities either in-town or in local relocations like the FBI tried to do with PG County. But that would mean billions - costs to buy land or tear down entire city blocks of federal buildings, contractor costs and bids, regulations processing for new developments, temporary relocation of employees....

I'm sure it is. That's part of my point. If the government MAINTAINED the facilitates it already owns, it would be cheaper in the long run. You wouldn't believe how clean my new building is. We even have a janitor who picks up my trash daily. Before we were required to dump our own trash once a week.

That is absolutely not the case. The oldest building in Washington, D.C. the government maintains is the freaking White House. They do it to optimal standards because its THE WHITE HOUSE.

Yet that same White House still has leaking water-logged basements, mold, termite damage and mice problems. There are some things you just can't get around dealing with in super-old buildings. Remediation on a regular basis is not only extraordinarily expensive but also often times ineffective unless you tear it down.



https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/451977-white-house-basement-floods-during-dc-rainstorm

“The rats have nearly taken the building so it has become necessary to get a man with ferrets. They [rats] have become so numerous and bold they get up on the table in the Upper Hall and one got up on Mr. Halford’s bed.”

https://carlanthonyonline.com/2014/06/01/rats-in-the-white-house-pestering-tales-of-barbara-bush-in-the-pool-others/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's projected to be a fast move, the spouse has to find work, you have to find someplace to live and someone to buy your house in the DC area.

And you have to pay for it all yourself. On a federal salary, while still living in the DC area and replacing your spouses lost income.

Ooh they aren't even paying for the move to missouri?! A move like that is easily 20-50k

USDA is paying their relocation costs. Obviously!