FBI HQ in PG!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Springfield location is terrible if the goal is to have a unified "campus" similar to other 3 letter agencies. The site simply isn't big enough and that stretch of I-95 is a bottlenecked hellscape of traffic.

The whole notion of "be located near other law enforcement agencies" is pretty bogus in the age of MS Teams.

The HOT lanes are great - and they are talking about expanding them to be bi-directional (not sure how they'll make that fit tbh).

The HOT lanes are great if you're willing to pay for them to escape the traffic congestion Transurban depends on to persuade you to pay for using the HOT lanes.

Slugging has been part of Virginia culture for literally decades. Did you know that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Springfield location is terrible if the goal is to have a unified "campus" similar to other 3 letter agencies. The site simply isn't big enough and that stretch of I-95 is a bottlenecked hellscape of traffic.

The whole notion of "be located near other law enforcement agencies" is pretty bogus in the age of MS Teams.

The stupid thing about applying that criteria for the FBI is that it was not applied when the other LE agencies moved there, obviously.

It’s self-justifying circular logic to allow VA’s successful lobbying for Federal LE agencies to relocate to Springfield as a justification/criteria for locating more Federal LE agencies there.

It’s probably also strategically dumb from a security/continuity of operations perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Springfield location is terrible if the goal is to have a unified "campus" similar to other 3 letter agencies. The site simply isn't big enough and that stretch of I-95 is a bottlenecked hellscape of traffic.

The whole notion of "be located near other law enforcement agencies" is pretty bogus in the age of MS Teams.

The HOT lanes are great - and they are talking about expanding them to be bi-directional (not sure how they'll make that fit tbh).

The HOT lanes are great if you're willing to pay for them to escape the traffic congestion Transurban depends on to persuade you to pay for using the HOT lanes.

Slugging has been part of Virginia culture for literally decades. Did you know that?

How's that going these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So.... the panel recommended Springfield.... but a sole black woman... who lives in PG... and used to work with the land owners of the PG site....vetoed the decision and picked ... PG?

How is this not a national scandal?

This is dirty, dirty, dirty. There are like a dozen conflicts of interest there.

The PG site picked will cost $1B less than Springfield to build out.

How can you ignore that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is such vitriol about MD and specifically PG county. I really dont understand it because I give no thoughts to VA the way some posters here seem to put down parts of MD. Love living in Bowie and it is definitely a weird mentality about where "good" people live. We all grew up in different areas. We are all here in this area working together.
From the article

"it was the lowest cost to taxpayers, provided the greatest transportation access to FBI employees and visitors, and gave the government the most certainty on project delivery schedule. It also provided the highest potential to advance sustainability and equity."..."It’s hard to argue with $1 billion to $1.5 billion in savings for federal taxpayers,” he told WTOP. “That’s the difference between the cost of building it in Prince George’s County as opposed to building in Virginia."

If GSA decided it was VA, I would think oh good for them! Glad it will save some money.

Exactly!
Virginia people are so weird. It's not some personal slight to them.
I'm also not sure why so many people assume that the commute issue wouldn't be the same had they chosen the Virginia location. In any case, some people will now be closer to work and some will be further away.
I know two people who work at FBI HQ. One lives in Howard County and one lives in Anne Arundel. Clearly they are both thrilled with the move.

[Anonymous]

When this is finished years and years from now, the staff impacted will whine a bit but ultimately head to Greenbelt. Greenbelt is wayyy better than the divisions getting transferred to Huntsville.

[Anonymous]

TBH, Virginia around Springfield and areas closer in are way too expensive. The future FBI agents won't be able to afford it.

There is still a lot of developable land in PG, Howard, and AA counties. New FBI agents will be able to afford to buy there for the next couple decades.

The new campus is about the future of the FBI. The Bureau has to meet the needs of future agents, not just the current agents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbelt is nice and if FBI staff don't want to live there Montgomery county and Anne Arundel county are nearby. Such drama queens on this board.

Perhaps the employees already own homes, have children in school, and/or spouses with their own commutes. “Just move to Anne Arundel” isn’t helpful.

My company is moving an entire cost center out of the area to other states clear out west, and a different country across the Atlantic.

Many of the employees own homes here. At least the FBI HQ move is still somewhat commutable.

Remember when Trump wanted to move the USDA to Kansas? FBI move is nothing like that, at least.

Half of them quit and were never replaced. We just lost some functionality of the US government, the reports they used to put out, that people used to use and rely on, don't get done anymore.

Why do you think FBI agents are different?

Because moving from an office from DC to Greenbelt, Maryland, is not like moving an office from DC to Kansas City, Missouri.

+1 OMG that ^PP is so dumb. Maybe they need a lesson in geography or reading skills since I stated, "At least the FBI HQ move is still somewhat commutable."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should have made the location contingent on infrastructure improvements by Maryland. A new American Legion bridge, a new river crossing at route 28, and the continuation of 495 express lanes to 95.

I do wish Maryland invested more in realistic transportation. I moved from Fairfax co to MD and I'm so envious of all the added lanes to 495, 66, and 95 in VA. I frequently drive with my kids with me, so personally I love the HOT lanes.

The areas around tysons and the like 20 lanes of traffic is an absolute hellscape.

That is literally what I think ("omg this is HELL") every time I drive there, which fortunately I don't have to do very often. As a Marylander, I sincerely hope we're not going to emulate Virginia's example.

Even on your best day, you'll not emulate Virginia's examples. Just facts.

ya'll voted for Youngkin. We don't ever want to emulate that.

y'all can enjoy your crime which we shake our head and laugh at.

y'all are regretting your Youngkin vote given how the state assembly is now all D.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Springfield location is terrible if the goal is to have a unified "campus" similar to other 3 letter agencies. The site simply isn't big enough and that stretch of I-95 is a bottlenecked hellscape of traffic.

The whole notion of "be located near other law enforcement agencies" is pretty bogus in the age of MS Teams.

The stupid thing about applying that criteria for the FBI is that it was not applied when the other LE agencies moved there, obviously.

It’s self-justifying circular logic to allow VA’s successful lobbying for Federal LE agencies to relocate to Springfield as a justification/criteria for locating more Federal LE agencies there.

It’s probably also strategically dumb from a security/continuity of operations perspective.

+1 same reason why they parsed out the cloud contract across multiple tech firms rather than just to one -- you do not want your eggs all in one basket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Springfield location is terrible if the goal is to have a unified "campus" similar to other 3 letter agencies. The site simply isn't big enough and that stretch of I-95 is a bottlenecked hellscape of traffic.

The whole notion of "be located near other law enforcement agencies" is pretty bogus in the age of MS Teams.

The stupid thing about applying that criteria for the FBI is that it was not applied when the other LE agencies moved there, obviously.

It’s self-justifying circular logic to allow VA’s successful lobbying for Federal LE agencies to relocate to Springfield as a justification/criteria for locating more Federal LE agencies there.

It’s probably also strategically dumb from a security/continuity of operations perspective.

+1 same reason why they parsed out the cloud contract across multiple tech firms rather than just to one -- you do not want your eggs all in one basket.

Seriously - pretty much every major natsec agency/facility located in a 10 mile radius: CIA, DOD/Pentagon, Ft Belvoir-Geospatial, DIA, DARPA, DTRA...and then add FBI? I'm sure I'm missing a couple others.

Dumb dumbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Springfield location is terrible if the goal is to have a unified "campus" similar to other 3 letter agencies. The site simply isn't big enough and that stretch of I-95 is a bottlenecked hellscape of traffic.

The whole notion of "be located near other law enforcement agencies" is pretty bogus in the age of MS Teams.

The stupid thing about applying that criteria for the FBI is that it was not applied when the other LE agencies moved there, obviously.

It’s self-justifying circular logic to allow VA’s successful lobbying for Federal LE agencies to relocate to Springfield as a justification/criteria for locating more Federal LE agencies there.

It’s probably also strategically dumb from a security/continuity of operations perspective.

+1 same reason why they parsed out the cloud contract across multiple tech firms rather than just to one -- you do not want your eggs all in one basket.

Seriously - pretty much every major natsec agency/facility located in a 10 mile radius: CIA, DOD/Pentagon, Ft Belvoir-Geospatial, DIA, DARPA, DTRA...and then add FBI? I'm sure I'm missing a couple others.

Dumb dumbs.

I'm not sure you've looked at a map recently - if you're saying that there should be geographic distance between natsec agencies (I suppose in case of nuclear warfare?). The current FBI location, the Greenville site, and the Springfield site are all relatively close together, geographically. They vary in convenience and accessibility wrt roads and public transit but they are all within a relatively small radius - DC and the DMV are just not that big. Hard to navigate? Sometimes. But not sprawling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should have made the location contingent on infrastructure improvements by Maryland. A new American Legion bridge, a new river crossing at route 28, and the continuation of 495 express lanes to 95.

I do wish Maryland invested more in realistic transportation. I moved from Fairfax co to MD and I'm so envious of all the added lanes to 495, 66, and 95 in VA. I frequently drive with my kids with me, so personally I love the HOT lanes.

Nobody has worse roads than VA.

Try driving the "top side" of the beltway. Or the merge of 270 and 495. It sucks. At least VA does something to address the traffic. MD does nothing.

Building more lanes does not address traffic. Providing amenities in transit rich locations and mass transit allows people to move from one place to another without sitting in traffic. Name a single instance where adding more lanes "addressed the traffic"

You can't.

Also, Greenbelt is nowhere near the top side of he beltway.

I use the HOT lanes in VA because I have other people in the car. HOT lanes have been great for me in regards to the traffic. So I personally am a fan. I don't see MD doing anything in regards to helping beltway congestion or having any plans to address traffic. I liked the Purple Line in theory, but the way it was managed was not so great. I do not use mass transit very often, as it is not all that practical for my own situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So.... the panel recommended Springfield.... but a sole black woman... who lives in PG... and used to work with the land owners of the PG site....vetoed the decision and picked ... PG?

How is this not a national scandal?

This is dirty, dirty, dirty. There are like a dozen conflicts of interest there.

Congratulations, PP, you just crossed over the line into explicit racism.

Where is the racism? I mean, aside from Nina Albert's.

We will wait.

DP. You went out of your way to highlight that Nina Albert is black and implied that she only made the decision to select the Greenbelt location because she was black. You can mention that she lives in PG and might be biased to introduce a economic boom by relocating a major agency to her home region. You can question her impartiality based on her previous employment with WMATA.

What in the heck does her race have to do with this decision? The first you highlighted about Nina Albert's was that she was "sole black woman".

That's flat out racism. You made her race the first thing you fixated on and highlighted and attributed her questionable action to. THERE is the racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Springfield location is terrible if the goal is to have a unified "campus" similar to other 3 letter agencies. The site simply isn't big enough and that stretch of I-95 is a bottlenecked hellscape of traffic.

The whole notion of "be located near other law enforcement agencies" is pretty bogus in the age of MS Teams.

The stupid thing about applying that criteria for the FBI is that it was not applied when the other LE agencies moved there, obviously.

It’s self-justifying circular logic to allow VA’s successful lobbying for Federal LE agencies to relocate to Springfield as a justification/criteria for locating more Federal LE agencies there.

It’s probably also strategically dumb from a security/continuity of operations perspective.

+1 same reason why they parsed out the cloud contract across multiple tech firms rather than just to one -- you do not want your eggs all in one basket.

Seriously - pretty much every major natsec agency/facility located in a 10 mile radius: CIA, DOD/Pentagon, Ft Belvoir-Geospatial, DIA, DARPA, DTRA...and then add FBI? I'm sure I'm missing a couple others.

Dumb dumbs.

I'm not sure you've looked at a map recently - if you're saying that there should be geographic distance between natsec agencies (I suppose in case of nuclear warfare?). The current FBI location, the Greenville site, and the Springfield site are all relatively close together, geographically. They vary in convenience and accessibility wrt roads and public transit but they are all within a relatively small radius - DC and the DMV are just not that big. Hard to navigate? Sometimes. But not sprawling.

Yes, COG.

That said, given how much time FBI agents spend in the courthouse I wonder if it isn't better to just keep them in DC.