FBI HQ in PG!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a red herring. There is no vested interest in Nina Albert awarding this to Greenbelt, and the fact is, outside of DC, it is the best option.

The strange thing about it is, outside of DC, Springfield is the best option. So why did she change it and pick Greenbelt instead? There doesn't seem to be a vested interest anywhere. So what was she doing?

That is your opinion. Greenbelt has been chosen twice. Maybe it really is the best option.

[Anonymous]

Going to Springfield, bet on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for GSA PBS. I was not part of the final decision but know people who were. Nothing shady was going on and this was definitely bullet proof given the politics and need to get a new HQ for the customer (FBI) ASAP.

Wray is jockeying for more $ for his field offices in the region.

Maybe it wasn't shady but it sure looks bad.

There is no way it isn't shady. She changed the criteria, vetoed the board, over rode the FBI, and gave the award to her former employer.

It's coming back.

It was not shady. The GSA response today says that she communicated her reasoning for adjusting the criteria with higher-up administration at the GSA. The fact that Greenbelt is shovel ready, was a time savings. Due to the failing infrastructure and the danger to employees from the decaying Hoover building, they prioritized getting the project started and completed years earlier than Springfield. Due to the existing federal inhabitants of the buildings on the Springfield site, it would have added major costs to relocating those occupants and their inventory to other locations. For some of the occupants, their storage facilities were custom designed for the inventory and the facilities would have to be reconstructed at alternate locations, which had not yet been identified. The combined cost and time that would be needed to develop the Springfield site, were not trivial and were key to the change. Frankly, Springfield should have been removed from the list of potential sites in 2022 when all of this was flagged.

And Wray's public letter is just more political games. He has been against moving the agency outside of DC since he was appointed and he has been fighting relocating outside of DC. This is jsut one more bit of his political gamesmanship. His gamesmanship is far worse than Nina Albert's. She had justification of time and money. Wray just wants to bully folks into more appropriations and political favors for his agency.

So she knew all of this but the board and everyone involved before her didn't consider any of it when they came up with the criteria?

The government decides on a project, comes up with criteria, and moves forward. Changing the criteria at the last minute is corrupt. Wray properly made it public.

Wray is another poliical appointee and he has his own agenda. He has been opposed to the FBI moving out of DC since he was appointed. He has made no bones about his opposition to moving out of DC for years. He is transparent. He was going to object to any of the locations. His entire end goal is that the FBI is not going to leave DC on his watch. So, by doing this, he's delayed the process longer because there will be an IG and Congressional review. With everything on Congress' plate, this is not going to be fast. And, if Springfield gets selected, that adds another 2-3 years before they can even start the new construction. Greenbelt was his least favorite, because the site is ready to go. They can begin digging on that site as soon as they can get a contractor. The initial designs were already made and submitted with the proposal. Greenbelt could start within months. Springfield would not start for at least 3 years. All of this means that he is more likely to keep the FBI in DC until he is replaced and that is his only goal. If you think he cares are anything else, you have not been paying attentiont to the man for the last 6 years.

Oh please. It was not Wray who kept the FBI in DC - that was Trump. For purely venal unpresidential reasons.

I read in the Washington Post (print edition) this week that Trump actually had nothing to do with keeping the FBI on Penna. Ave so that another hotel development wouldn’t move in to compete with his own. We were all led to believe that but it was in fact not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I think that Greenbelt was the best site of the three options, I've lived through an agency relocation from the District to the suburbs and it can be extremely disruptive to the lives of employees. I'm sure they could have found a suitable building in the District, but I'm guessing the security hawks insisted on things like setbacks and perimeter fencing that made that impossible (all of which is silly when you actually know what most HQ staff do).

More than one FBI field office has been attacked. They can have as much security as they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for GSA PBS. I was not part of the final decision but know people who were. Nothing shady was going on and this was definitely bullet proof given the politics and need to get a new HQ for the customer (FBI) ASAP.

Wray is jockeying for more $ for his field offices in the region.

Maybe it wasn't shady but it sure looks bad.

There is no way it isn't shady. She changed the criteria, vetoed the board, over rode the FBI, and gave the award to her former employer.

It's coming back.

It was not shady. The GSA response today says that she communicated her reasoning for adjusting the criteria with higher-up administration at the GSA. The fact that Greenbelt is shovel ready, was a time savings. Due to the failing infrastructure and the danger to employees from the decaying Hoover building, they prioritized getting the project started and completed years earlier than Springfield. Due to the existing federal inhabitants of the buildings on the Springfield site, it would have added major costs to relocating those occupants and their inventory to other locations. For some of the occupants, their storage facilities were custom designed for the inventory and the facilities would have to be reconstructed at alternate locations, which had not yet been identified. The combined cost and time that would be needed to develop the Springfield site, were not trivial and were key to the change. Frankly, Springfield should have been removed from the list of potential sites in 2022 when all of this was flagged.

And Wray's public letter is just more political games. He has been against moving the agency outside of DC since he was appointed and he has been fighting relocating outside of DC. This is jsut one more bit of his political gamesmanship. His gamesmanship is far worse than Nina Albert's. She had justification of time and money. Wray just wants to bully folks into more appropriations and political favors for his agency.

So she knew all of this but the board and everyone involved before her didn't consider any of it when they came up with the criteria?

The government decides on a project, comes up with criteria, and moves forward. Changing the criteria at the last minute is corrupt. Wray properly made it public.

Wray is another poliical appointee and he has his own agenda. He has been opposed to the FBI moving out of DC since he was appointed. He has made no bones about his opposition to moving out of DC for years. He is transparent. He was going to object to any of the locations. His entire end goal is that the FBI is not going to leave DC on his watch. So, by doing this, he's delayed the process longer because there will be an IG and Congressional review. With everything on Congress' plate, this is not going to be fast. And, if Springfield gets selected, that adds another 2-3 years before they can even start the new construction. Greenbelt was his least favorite, because the site is ready to go. They can begin digging on that site as soon as they can get a contractor. The initial designs were already made and submitted with the proposal. Greenbelt could start within months. Springfield would not start for at least 3 years. All of this means that he is more likely to keep the FBI in DC until he is replaced and that is his only goal. If you think he cares are anything else, you have not been paying attentiont to the man for the last 6 years.

Oh please. It was not Wray who kept the FBI in DC - that was Trump. For purely venal unpresidential reasons.

I read in the Washington Post (print edition) this week that Trump actually had nothing to do with keeping the FBI on Penna. Ave so that another hotel development wouldn’t move in to compete with his own. We were all led to believe that but it was in fact not true.

Who determined that, a Trump-appointed IG?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

How is it “easy” to move a metro station 3/4 of a mile??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I think that Greenbelt was the best site of the three options, I've lived through an agency relocation from the District to the suburbs and it can be extremely disruptive to the lives of employees. I'm sure they could have found a suitable building in the District, but I'm guessing the security hawks insisted on things like setbacks and perimeter fencing that made that impossible (all of which is silly when you actually know what most HQ staff do).

There was no location that was found to be suitably large. The Greenbelt and Springfield locations are both just over 60 acres. The Landover site is about 80 acres. The idea is that the FBI should have room for a sufficiently large campus that they can relocate and build additional support buildings as needed for their agency and mission. There are virtually no suitably large locations within the district that are already owned by the federal government. About the only option would be to carve out a chunk of the National Arboretum (which is just under 450 acres) and give it to the FBI. That was not being considered.

The point is that like CIA Langley and NSA Ft Meade, they wanted a campus sufficiently large to not only house the existing headquarters, but to also give the agency the space that should they choose to develop additional facilities, relocate offices, or create new facilities, they had the room to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

How is it “easy” to move a metro station 3/4 of a mile??

The metro is right next to the Springfield site. They. They could create a more direct walking path but it’s certainly not 3/4 miles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

This is actually the most absurd post that I’ve seen in a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Whatever. Stoney thinks he has a shot at Governor in 2025. Just trying to make a name for himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

How is it “easy” to move a metro station 3/4 of a mile??

The metro is right next to the Springfield site. They. They could create a more direct walking path but it’s certainly not 3/4 miles.

Correct. And VDOT is extending Frontier Drive to Loisdale, which will better link the Metro station to the properties immediately adjacent to the west, including the warehouse property that was in the running.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably be years before anything happens

The Greenbelt site is shovel ready, the Springfield site will take years to become buildable.

Everything at the Springfield site - the GSA warehouses - will need to be rebuilt elsewhere. That’s one reason Springfield is such an astronomically expensive option. In addition to demo and site prep.

The Springfield site is also not close the Metro station at all. 3/4 mile I think. So most employees would likely drive to the new HQ. It would be another GSA disaster like that ugly government facility they built at Alexandria’s Mark Center next to Shirley Hwy, far from Metro with humongous parking structures.

Landover would have been another silly choice for similar reasons.

Greenbelt is actually the most logical site.

At this point, if NoVA wants another enormous cluster near them, without ready metro access, that's on them. Have fun with it.

Nova is in the process of redoing the Springfield metro station - they can revise their plans to include a new FBI HQ pretty easily, if the site is chosen. It will all be changing in the next few years, might as well change it one way as another.

How is it “easy” to move a metro station 3/4 of a mile??

The metro is right next to the Springfield site. They. They could create a more direct walking path but it’s certainly not 3/4 miles.

The Springfield site is near the metro train yard, but the station itself is a long walk away. The Greenbelt site is by far more Metro accessible as the selection site criteria determined.