FBI HQ in PG!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

THIS COSTS A BILLION MORE DOLLARS.

That is not the biggest concern - shouldn't the biggest concern (heavily weighted criteria) be the best location for the agency?

Has it occurred to you that the best location for the agency might be the one that costs A BILLION DOLLARS less than the other one? But let me guess you’re always talking about government waste, fraud and abuse am I right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

When the cost is going to be near 10 figures? Yes.

There were two other sites that did not have this price tag. The convenience to Quantico is being overstated to justify why you want the GSA to spend an additional $1B and inconvenience the various agencies that are already have storage and inventory at that site. So, it's fine to uproot smaller agencies that have very specifically designed storage facilities that have to be relocated and rebuilt to the same specifications just to move the FBI to one specific site. The agency has survived for over 100 years with those who need to travel from downtown to Quantico and they can survive for another 100 without being next door to Quantico. Besides, most people that travel to Quantico are not going from HQ to Quantico. Most are being assigned for a day or multiple days and will travel from homes to Quantico. If, as all the Virginians say, the majority of the HQ staff live in NoVa, then they will be commuting from home, not from their normal work office at HQ.

Take a look at the criteria. That's what the FBI wanted, proximity to Quantico, airports, and main Justice. The 3 locations varied but Springfield met all three the best.

You, Ms. Albert, are negating their stated preference. You are deciding that they don't know what they want and should just go somewhere else, that you think is better for them.

That's literally what the GSA is for. The FBI does the FBI stuff. The GSA does the real estate stuff. The FBI does not do the real estate stuff.

THANK YOU I can’t believe this needs to be spelled out but apparently it does. GSA doesn’t “overrule the board,” it actually makes the decision because that’s its damn job. All of you were probably cheering when Trump moved all the high level scientists in the Ag Department to Kansas.

Look at the FOIA page. The GSA made a decision and then Nina Albert changed the criteria. She overruled the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

THIS COSTS A BILLION MORE DOLLARS.

That is not the biggest concern - shouldn't the biggest concern (heavily weighted criteria) be the best location for the agency?

Has it occurred to you that the best location for the agency might be the one that costs A BILLION DOLLARS less than the other one? But let me guess you’re always talking about government waste, fraud and abuse am I right?

The FBI is going to be at the new location for decades, probably. Maybe longer, maybe shorter.

I realize that you hate the FBI because it investigates things you like and doesn't investigate things you don't like. But other people want the FBI to have the most practical HQ, what they requested, for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

When the cost is going to be near 10 figures? Yes.

There were two other sites that did not have this price tag. The convenience to Quantico is being overstated to justify why you want the GSA to spend an additional $1B and inconvenience the various agencies that are already have storage and inventory at that site. So, it's fine to uproot smaller agencies that have very specifically designed storage facilities that have to be relocated and rebuilt to the same specifications just to move the FBI to one specific site. The agency has survived for over 100 years with those who need to travel from downtown to Quantico and they can survive for another 100 without being next door to Quantico. Besides, most people that travel to Quantico are not going from HQ to Quantico. Most are being assigned for a day or multiple days and will travel from homes to Quantico. If, as all the Virginians say, the majority of the HQ staff live in NoVa, then they will be commuting from home, not from their normal work office at HQ.

Take a look at the criteria. That's what the FBI wanted, proximity to Quantico, airports, and main Justice. The 3 locations varied but Springfield met all three the best.

You, Ms. Albert, are negating their stated preference. You are deciding that they don't know what they want and should just go somewhere else, that you think is better for them.

That's literally what the GSA is for. The FBI does the FBI stuff. The GSA does the real estate stuff. The FBI does not do the real estate stuff.

THANK YOU I can’t believe this needs to be spelled out but apparently it does. GSA doesn’t “overrule the board,” it actually makes the decision because that’s its damn job. All of you were probably cheering when Trump moved all the high level scientists in the Ag Department to Kansas.

Look at the FOIA page. The GSA made a decision and then Nina Albert changed the criteria. She overruled the board.

Nobody "overruled" anybody. The job of the panel was to make recommendations. Her job was to decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

THIS COSTS A BILLION MORE DOLLARS.

That is not the biggest concern - shouldn't the biggest concern (heavily weighted criteria) be the best location for the agency?

Has it occurred to you that the best location for the agency might be the one that costs A BILLION DOLLARS less than the other one? But let me guess you’re always talking about government waste, fraud and abuse am I right?

The FBI is going to be at the new location for decades, probably. Maybe longer, maybe shorter.

I realize that you hate the FBI because it investigates things you like and doesn't investigate things you don't like. But other people want the FBI to have the most practical HQ, what they requested, for the foreseeable future.

I have FBI in my family, I don’t know why you’re mistaking me for someone who hates them. Please check yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

THIS COSTS A BILLION MORE DOLLARS.

No, it’s costs 25 million more. That’s nothing to the feds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

THIS COSTS A BILLION MORE DOLLARS.

That is not the biggest concern - shouldn't the biggest concern (heavily weighted criteria) be the best location for the agency?

Has it occurred to you that the best location for the agency might be the one that costs A BILLION DOLLARS less than the other one? But let me guess you’re always talking about government waste, fraud and abuse am I right?

The FBI is going to be at the new location for decades, probably. Maybe longer, maybe shorter.

I realize that you hate the FBI because it investigates things you like and doesn't investigate things you don't like. But other people want the FBI to have the most practical HQ, what they requested, for the foreseeable future.

I have FBI in my family, I don’t know why you’re mistaking me for someone who hates them. Please check yourself.

If so, then perhaps you are bending over backwards in order to not seem partisan towards them - but you aren't being objective. A billion dollars for a proper HQ is not cost-prohibitive and no one would say that it is. Ms. Alberts changed all the agreed-upon and negotiated criteria. For some undisclosed reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

THIS COSTS A BILLION MORE DOLLARS.

No, it’s costs 25 million more. That’s nothing to the feds.

25 million seems like a very significant cost difference for one construction project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

THIS COSTS A BILLION MORE DOLLARS.

That is not the biggest concern - shouldn't the biggest concern (heavily weighted criteria) be the best location for the agency?

Has it occurred to you that the best location for the agency might be the one that costs A BILLION DOLLARS less than the other one? But let me guess you’re always talking about government waste, fraud and abuse am I right?

The FBI is going to be at the new location for decades, probably. Maybe longer, maybe shorter.

I realize that you hate the FBI because it investigates things you like and doesn't investigate things you don't like. But other people want the FBI to have the most practical HQ, what they requested, for the foreseeable future.

I have FBI in my family, I don’t know why you’re mistaking me for someone who hates them. Please check yourself.

If so, then perhaps you are bending over backwards in order to not seem partisan towards them - but you aren't being objective. A billion dollars for a proper HQ is not cost-prohibitive and no one would say that it is. Ms. Alberts changed all the agreed-upon and negotiated criteria. For some undisclosed reason.

DP. What? A billion dollars sounds very cost prohibitive! This is on top of the cost of the building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

THIS COSTS A BILLION MORE DOLLARS.

No, it’s costs 25 million more. That’s nothing to the feds.

25 million seems like a very significant cost difference for one construction project.

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

When the cost is going to be near 10 figures? Yes.

There were two other sites that did not have this price tag. The convenience to Quantico is being overstated to justify why you want the GSA to spend an additional $1B and inconvenience the various agencies that are already have storage and inventory at that site. So, it's fine to uproot smaller agencies that have very specifically designed storage facilities that have to be relocated and rebuilt to the same specifications just to move the FBI to one specific site. The agency has survived for over 100 years with those who need to travel from downtown to Quantico and they can survive for another 100 without being next door to Quantico. Besides, most people that travel to Quantico are not going from HQ to Quantico. Most are being assigned for a day or multiple days and will travel from homes to Quantico. If, as all the Virginians say, the majority of the HQ staff live in NoVa, then they will be commuting from home, not from their normal work office at HQ.

Take a look at the criteria. That's what the FBI wanted, proximity to Quantico, airports, and main Justice. The 3 locations varied but Springfield met all three the best.

You, Ms. Albert, are negating their stated preference. You are deciding that they don't know what they want and should just go somewhere else, that you think is better for them.

That's literally what the GSA is for. The FBI does the FBI stuff. The GSA does the real estate stuff. The FBI does not do the real estate stuff.

THANK YOU I can’t believe this needs to be spelled out but apparently it does. GSA doesn’t “overrule the board,” it actually makes the decision because that’s its damn job. All of you were probably cheering when Trump moved all the high level scientists in the Ag Department to Kansas.

Look at the FOIA page. The GSA made a decision and then Nina Albert changed the criteria. She overruled the board.

Nobody "overruled" anybody. The job of the panel was to make recommendations. Her job was to decide.

She was supposed to give equal weight to each of the criteria in #2 but unilaterally decided to give more weight to 2a-c because in her opinion, those were the most important to FBI employees and visitors. She’s an expert in real estate, not FBI operations, and shouldn’t have adjusted those criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

When the cost is going to be near 10 figures? Yes.

There were two other sites that did not have this price tag. The convenience to Quantico is being overstated to justify why you want the GSA to spend an additional $1B and inconvenience the various agencies that are already have storage and inventory at that site. So, it's fine to uproot smaller agencies that have very specifically designed storage facilities that have to be relocated and rebuilt to the same specifications just to move the FBI to one specific site. The agency has survived for over 100 years with those who need to travel from downtown to Quantico and they can survive for another 100 without being next door to Quantico. Besides, most people that travel to Quantico are not going from HQ to Quantico. Most are being assigned for a day or multiple days and will travel from homes to Quantico. If, as all the Virginians say, the majority of the HQ staff live in NoVa, then they will be commuting from home, not from their normal work office at HQ.

Take a look at the criteria. That's what the FBI wanted, proximity to Quantico, airports, and main Justice. The 3 locations varied but Springfield met all three the best.

You, Ms. Albert, are negating their stated preference. You are deciding that they don't know what they want and should just go somewhere else, that you think is better for them.

That's literally what the GSA is for. The FBI does the FBI stuff. The GSA does the real estate stuff. The FBI does not do the real estate stuff.

THANK YOU I can’t believe this needs to be spelled out but apparently it does. GSA doesn’t “overrule the board,” it actually makes the decision because that’s its damn job. All of you were probably cheering when Trump moved all the high level scientists in the Ag Department to Kansas.

Look at the FOIA page. The GSA made a decision and then Nina Albert changed the criteria. She overruled the board.

Nobody "overruled" anybody. The job of the panel was to make recommendations. Her job was to decide.

She was supposed to give equal weight to each of the criteria in #2 but unilaterally decided to give more weight to 2a-c because in her opinion, those were the most important to FBI employees and visitors. She’s an expert in real estate, not FBI operations, and shouldn’t have adjusted those criteria.

It sounds to me like people in the FBI are upset because the person who made the decision didn't make the decision they wanted. I'm reminded of the saying from preschool: you get what you get, and you don't get upset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

When the cost is going to be near 10 figures? Yes.

There were two other sites that did not have this price tag. The convenience to Quantico is being overstated to justify why you want the GSA to spend an additional $1B and inconvenience the various agencies that are already have storage and inventory at that site. So, it's fine to uproot smaller agencies that have very specifically designed storage facilities that have to be relocated and rebuilt to the same specifications just to move the FBI to one specific site. The agency has survived for over 100 years with those who need to travel from downtown to Quantico and they can survive for another 100 without being next door to Quantico. Besides, most people that travel to Quantico are not going from HQ to Quantico. Most are being assigned for a day or multiple days and will travel from homes to Quantico. If, as all the Virginians say, the majority of the HQ staff live in NoVa, then they will be commuting from home, not from their normal work office at HQ.

Take a look at the criteria. That's what the FBI wanted, proximity to Quantico, airports, and main Justice. The 3 locations varied but Springfield met all three the best.

You, Ms. Albert, are negating their stated preference. You are deciding that they don't know what they want and should just go somewhere else, that you think is better for them.

That's literally what the GSA is for. The FBI does the FBI stuff. The GSA does the real estate stuff. The FBI does not do the real estate stuff.

THANK YOU I can’t believe this needs to be spelled out but apparently it does. GSA doesn’t “overrule the board,” it actually makes the decision because that’s its damn job. All of you were probably cheering when Trump moved all the high level scientists in the Ag Department to Kansas.

Look at the FOIA page. The GSA made a decision and then Nina Albert changed the criteria. She overruled the board.

Nobody "overruled" anybody. The job of the panel was to make recommendations. Her job was to decide.

She was supposed to give equal weight to each of the criteria in #2 but unilaterally decided to give more weight to 2a-c because in her opinion, those were the most important to FBI employees and visitors. She’s an expert in real estate, not FBI operations, and shouldn’t have adjusted those criteria.

It sounds to me like people in the FBI are upset because the person who made the decision didn't make the decision they wanted. I'm reminded of the saying from preschool: you get what you get, and you don't get upset.

Each criteria had a negotiated and agreed upon weighting. Then Albert changed it at the last second. Yeah, the people in the FBI are upset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

When the cost is going to be near 10 figures? Yes.

There were two other sites that did not have this price tag. The convenience to Quantico is being overstated to justify why you want the GSA to spend an additional $1B and inconvenience the various agencies that are already have storage and inventory at that site. So, it's fine to uproot smaller agencies that have very specifically designed storage facilities that have to be relocated and rebuilt to the same specifications just to move the FBI to one specific site. The agency has survived for over 100 years with those who need to travel from downtown to Quantico and they can survive for another 100 without being next door to Quantico. Besides, most people that travel to Quantico are not going from HQ to Quantico. Most are being assigned for a day or multiple days and will travel from homes to Quantico. If, as all the Virginians say, the majority of the HQ staff live in NoVa, then they will be commuting from home, not from their normal work office at HQ.

Take a look at the criteria. That's what the FBI wanted, proximity to Quantico, airports, and main Justice. The 3 locations varied but Springfield met all three the best.

You, Ms. Albert, are negating their stated preference. You are deciding that they don't know what they want and should just go somewhere else, that you think is better for them.

That's literally what the GSA is for. The FBI does the FBI stuff. The GSA does the real estate stuff. The FBI does not do the real estate stuff.

THANK YOU I can’t believe this needs to be spelled out but apparently it does. GSA doesn’t “overrule the board,” it actually makes the decision because that’s its damn job. All of you were probably cheering when Trump moved all the high level scientists in the Ag Department to Kansas.

Look at the FOIA page. The GSA made a decision and then Nina Albert changed the criteria. She overruled the board.

Nobody "overruled" anybody. The job of the panel was to make recommendations. Her job was to decide.

She was supposed to give equal weight to each of the criteria in #2 but unilaterally decided to give more weight to 2a-c because in her opinion, those were the most important to FBI employees and visitors. She’s an expert in real estate, not FBI operations, and shouldn’t have adjusted those criteria.

It sounds to me like people in the FBI are upset because the person who made the decision didn't make the decision they wanted. I'm reminded of the saying from preschool: you get what you get, and you don't get upset.

Each criteria had a negotiated and agreed upon weighting. Then Albert changed it at the last second. Yeah, the people in the FBI are upset.

The decider makes the decisions. That's something people in the FBI should be able to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A simple shuttle system running from 6-930a and 3-630p could fix that. Either way, walking isn't as bad as it seems. Comparable to a walk from the edge of the Pentagon parking lot.

So, they will need to:
- Empty and demolish a bunch of warehouses
- rebuild the metro station and/or create a shuttle system

But somehow Springfield is still the better location?

The metro station is already going to be rebuilt. That has nothing to do with this. Although they could work with each other, if any decision is made in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, the "big problem" with the Springfield site is a bunch of warehouses that need to be relocated. You think that should stop the FBI from getting a new HQ where they want it (close to Quantico and airports)? Some warehouses?

THIS COSTS A BILLION MORE DOLLARS.

That is not the biggest concern - shouldn't the biggest concern (heavily weighted criteria) be the best location for the agency?

It was weighed 15 pts more.