FBI HQ in PG!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

Twenty five million dollars? You feel that strongly about what amounts to a rounding error?

I'm pretty sure that if you asked taxpayers the question: "Do you think the government should choose a building option that would save taxpayers $40mil?", most people, especially conservatives would say yes.

Telling taxpayers that the government made a decision based on what a government employee, and one that was appointed at that, wanted rather than what was the best use of taxpayer money would not go over well.

I'm fairly certain that in a different scenario, if they had chosen MD over VA and the cost of building in MD was going to be more than double, lots of VA people would be up in arms over it.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

[Anonymous]

MD should have a statue of Nina Albert erected in Greenbelt someday since she is the sole reason why Maryland was chosen.

Maybe WMATA can kick in 50%.

[Anonymous]

It’s funny to hear the uproar over $1 billion.

That’s a rounding error these days…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

And this is what I, a taxpayer who doesn’t work for the fbi, cares about. By the time the building opens, many of the people complaining now will have moved on to other jobs, anyway. Agents retire young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MD should have a statue of Nina Albert erected in Greenbelt someday since she is the sole reason why Maryland was chosen.

Maybe WMATA can kick in 50%.

The HQ will be named after Steney Hoyer.

[Anonymous]

Prince George’s Cty has a long history of pay to play. At least the FBI will be able to have a closer look at it.

[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?

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.

Agencies make a lot of stated preferences. If left to the agencies, they would double or triple their budgets. The point of having the GSA make these decisions is that GSA will take the requested preferences from the agencies and decide what the government can actually afford.

Likewise, the GSA panel, researches and makes their recommendations to the GSA administration. They did so. It is then up the GSA administration to make their decisions. Like any other major decision, the people in the positions to make the decisions get research and input from various sources and put them together to make their call. The panel's recommendations are not the decision itself, but one of the sources of research. In this case, Ms. Albert heard the recommendation from the panel and made adjustments. She informed the administration officials above her and they concurred with her assessment to make a different decision than the one that the panel recommended.

This type of action happens in every agency all the time. Ms Albert did not make the decision in a vacuum. Yes, she had a prior affiliation with WMATA and that has been known since she was assigned to the role that made the decision. This is why she sent emails and cleared her decision with the upper management before she made that call. This is why the upper management of the GSA has reviewed, responded and stands by the decision that was made. Greenbelt.

She is not deciding that Greenbelt is better for the FBI. She decided that Greenbelt is better for the federal government. They took the preferences of the Agency into account, weighed the many other factors that go into such decisions and made the decision that would work best for the federal government.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but to be clear, Ms Albert was the Commissioner of the Public Building Service. She was upper management, there is literally only one person above her in the GSA, the Administrator. So, if your argument is that she cleared it with upper management, that means she cleared it with literally one person.

[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.

Agencies make a lot of stated preferences. If left to the agencies, they would double or triple their budgets. The point of having the GSA make these decisions is that GSA will take the requested preferences from the agencies and decide what the government can actually afford.

Likewise, the GSA panel, researches and makes their recommendations to the GSA administration. They did so. It is then up the GSA administration to make their decisions. Like any other major decision, the people in the positions to make the decisions get research and input from various sources and put them together to make their call. The panel's recommendations are not the decision itself, but one of the sources of research. In this case, Ms. Albert heard the recommendation from the panel and made adjustments. She informed the administration officials above her and they concurred with her assessment to make a different decision than the one that the panel recommended.

This type of action happens in every agency all the time. Ms Albert did not make the decision in a vacuum. Yes, she had a prior affiliation with WMATA and that has been known since she was assigned to the role that made the decision. This is why she sent emails and cleared her decision with the upper management before she made that call. This is why the upper management of the GSA has reviewed, responded and stands by the decision that was made. Greenbelt.

She is not deciding that Greenbelt is better for the FBI. She decided that Greenbelt is better for the federal government. They took the preferences of the Agency into account, weighed the many other factors that go into such decisions and made the decision that would work best for the federal government.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but to be clear, Ms Albert was the Commissioner of the Public Building Service. She was upper management, there is literally only one person above her in the GSA, the Administrator. So, if your argument is that she cleared it with upper management, that means she cleared it with literally one person.

The one person whose job it is to make these decisions. What is your issue exactly?

[Anonymous]

a billion dollars saved and nobody in VA has a response to that point... lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

Twenty five million dollars? You feel that strongly about what amounts to a rounding error?

I'm pretty sure that if you asked taxpayers the question: "Do you think the government should choose a building option that would save taxpayers $40mil?", most people, especially conservatives would say yes.

Telling taxpayers that the government made a decision based on what a government employee, and one that was appointed at that, wanted rather than what was the best use of taxpayer money would not go over well.

I'm fairly certain that in a different scenario, if they had chosen MD over VA and the cost of building in MD was going to be more than double, lots of VA people would be up in arms over it.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

Wray doesn’t want to leave DC and that’s why he’s not satisfied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

Twenty five million dollars? You feel that strongly about what amounts to a rounding error?

I'm pretty sure that if you asked taxpayers the question: "Do you think the government should choose a building option that would save taxpayers $40mil?", most people, especially conservatives would say yes.

Telling taxpayers that the government made a decision based on what a government employee, and one that was appointed at that, wanted rather than what was the best use of taxpayer money would not go over well.

I'm fairly certain that in a different scenario, if they had chosen MD over VA and the cost of building in MD was going to be more than double, lots of VA people would be up in arms over it.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

Twenty five million dollars? You feel that strongly about what amounts to a rounding error?

I'm pretty sure that if you asked taxpayers the question: "Do you think the government should choose a building option that would save taxpayers $40mil?", most people, especially conservatives would say yes.

Telling taxpayers that the government made a decision based on what a government employee, and one that was appointed at that, wanted rather than what was the best use of taxpayer money would not go over well.

I'm fairly certain that in a different scenario, if they had chosen MD over VA and the cost of building in MD was going to be more than double, lots of VA people would be up in arms over it.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Sure. And there's a lot here in the process to complain about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

Twenty five million dollars? You feel that strongly about what amounts to a rounding error?

I'm pretty sure that if you asked taxpayers the question: "Do you think the government should choose a building option that would save taxpayers $40mil?", most people, especially conservatives would say yes.

Telling taxpayers that the government made a decision based on what a government employee, and one that was appointed at that, wanted rather than what was the best use of taxpayer money would not go over well.

I'm fairly certain that in a different scenario, if they had chosen MD over VA and the cost of building in MD was going to be more than double, lots of VA people would be up in arms over it.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Sure. And there's a lot here in the process to complain about.

like saving 1 billion dollars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

Twenty five million dollars? You feel that strongly about what amounts to a rounding error?

I'm pretty sure that if you asked taxpayers the question: "Do you think the government should choose a building option that would save taxpayers $40mil?", most people, especially conservatives would say yes.

Telling taxpayers that the government made a decision based on what a government employee, and one that was appointed at that, wanted rather than what was the best use of taxpayer money would not go over well.

I'm fairly certain that in a different scenario, if they had chosen MD over VA and the cost of building in MD was going to be more than double, lots of VA people would be up in arms over it.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Sure. And there's a lot here in the process to complain about.

Principally that it led to an outcome you don't like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's the best deal for taxpayers.

Twenty five million dollars? You feel that strongly about what amounts to a rounding error?

I'm pretty sure that if you asked taxpayers the question: "Do you think the government should choose a building option that would save taxpayers $40mil?", most people, especially conservatives would say yes.

Telling taxpayers that the government made a decision based on what a government employee, and one that was appointed at that, wanted rather than what was the best use of taxpayer money would not go over well.

I'm fairly certain that in a different scenario, if they had chosen MD over VA and the cost of building in MD was going to be more than double, lots of VA people would be up in arms over it.

If the process had worked out to select MD, then everyone, including Wray and the FBI, would be satisfied. Since the process appears rigged, they're not satisfied.

When people don't like the outcome, they complain about the process.

Sure. And there's a lot here in the process to complain about.

like saving 1 billion dollars?

One beeeelion dollars! You sound like Austin Powers.