FBI HQ in PG!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

the land is available now, metro accessible, save taxpayers $1B, and it promotes development in a majority-minority county. explain to me again what the benefit of Springfield is relative to Greenbelt?

[Anonymous]

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

That’s a rounding error these days…

Only for the Pentagon and defense contractors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

the land is available now, metro accessible, save taxpayers $1B, and it promotes development in a majority-minority county. explain to me again what the benefit of Springfield is relative to Greenbelt?

The land at Greenbelt is "available" now in the sense that it can be purchased. The land at Springfield is already US property, doesn't even need to be acquired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

That’s a rounding error these days…

Only for the Pentagon and defense contractors.

For all contractors. Do you follow construction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

the land is available now, metro accessible, save taxpayers $1B, and it promotes development in a majority-minority county. explain to me again what the benefit of Springfield is relative to Greenbelt?

The land at Greenbelt is "available" now in the sense that it can be purchased. The land at Springfield is already US property, doesn't even need to be acquired.

But it’s already being leased by other federal entities and the cost of moving the warehouses was estimated at 1 billion dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

the land is available now, metro accessible, save taxpayers $1B, and it promotes development in a majority-minority county. explain to me again what the benefit of Springfield is relative to Greenbelt?

The land at Greenbelt is "available" now in the sense that it can be purchased. The land at Springfield is already US property, doesn't even need to be acquired.

But it’s already being leased by other federal entities and the cost of moving the warehouses was estimated at 1 billion dollars.

not to mention these warehouses include highly classified offices for the CIA. good luck relocating that in a timely manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

the land is available now, metro accessible, save taxpayers $1B, and it promotes development in a majority-minority county. explain to me again what the benefit of Springfield is relative to Greenbelt?

The land at Greenbelt is "available" now in the sense that it can be purchased. The land at Springfield is already US property, doesn't even need to be acquired.

But it’s already being leased by other federal entities and the cost of moving the warehouses was estimated at 1 billion dollars.

What is the source of this 1 billion? It’s not in GSA’s materials.

[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: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.

the land is available now, metro accessible, save taxpayers $1B, and it promotes development in a majority-minority county. explain to me again what the benefit of Springfield is relative to Greenbelt?

The land at Greenbelt is "available" now in the sense that it can be purchased. The land at Springfield is already US property, doesn't even need to be acquired.

But it’s already being leased by other federal entities and the cost of moving the warehouses was estimated at 1 billion dollars.

not to mention these warehouses include highly classified offices for the CIA. good luck relocating that in a timely manner.

GSA estimates that relocating existing tenants would take 41 months and that construction at either site would not begin until at least 42 months. Seems like there is enough time for those tenants to move.

[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: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.

the land is available now, metro accessible, save taxpayers $1B, and it promotes development in a majority-minority county. explain to me again what the benefit of Springfield is relative to Greenbelt?

The land at Greenbelt is "available" now in the sense that it can be purchased. The land at Springfield is already US property, doesn't even need to be acquired.

But it’s already being leased by other federal entities and the cost of moving the warehouses was estimated at 1 billion dollars.

not to mention these warehouses include highly classified offices for the CIA. good luck relocating that in a timely manner.

GSA estimates that relocating existing tenants would take 41 months and that construction at either site would not begin until at least 42 months. Seems like there is enough time for those tenants to move.

So, you are privy to the classified material in these warehouses?

[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: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.

the land is available now, metro accessible, save taxpayers $1B, and it promotes development in a majority-minority county. explain to me again what the benefit of Springfield is relative to Greenbelt?

The land at Greenbelt is "available" now in the sense that it can be purchased. The land at Springfield is already US property, doesn't even need to be acquired.

But it’s already being leased by other federal entities and the cost of moving the warehouses was estimated at 1 billion dollars.

What is the source of this 1 billion? It’s not in GSA’s materials.

It is.

[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: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.

the land is available now, metro accessible, save taxpayers $1B, and it promotes development in a majority-minority county. explain to me again what the benefit of Springfield is relative to Greenbelt?

The land at Greenbelt is "available" now in the sense that it can be purchased. The land at Springfield is already US property, doesn't even need to be acquired.

But it’s already being leased by other federal entities and the cost of moving the warehouses was estimated at 1 billion dollars.

not to mention these warehouses include highly classified offices for the CIA. good luck relocating that in a timely manner.

GSA estimates that relocating existing tenants would take 41 months and that construction at either site would not begin until at least 42 months. Seems like there is enough time for those tenants to move.

So, you are privy to the classified material in these warehouses?

Surely GSA is as the property owner

[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: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.

the land is available now, metro accessible, save taxpayers $1B, and it promotes development in a majority-minority county. explain to me again what the benefit of Springfield is relative to Greenbelt?

The land at Greenbelt is "available" now in the sense that it can be purchased. The land at Springfield is already US property, doesn't even need to be acquired.

But it’s already being leased by other federal entities and the cost of moving the warehouses was estimated at 1 billion dollars.

not to mention these warehouses include highly classified offices for the CIA. good luck relocating that in a timely manner.

GSA estimates that relocating existing tenants would take 41 months and that construction at either site would not begin until at least 42 months. Seems like there is enough time for those tenants to move.

So, you are privy to the classified material in these warehouses?

Surely GSA is as the property owner

No. I work for GSA and we don't have access to classified information used by our customers in our buildings.

[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: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.

the land is available now, metro accessible, save taxpayers $1B, and it promotes development in a majority-minority county. explain to me again what the benefit of Springfield is relative to Greenbelt?

The land at Greenbelt is "available" now in the sense that it can be purchased. The land at Springfield is already US property, doesn't even need to be acquired.

But it’s already being leased by other federal entities and the cost of moving the warehouses was estimated at 1 billion dollars.

not to mention these warehouses include highly classified offices for the CIA. good luck relocating that in a timely manner.

GSA estimates that relocating existing tenants would take 41 months and that construction at either site would not begin until at least 42 months. Seems like there is enough time for those tenants to move.

So, you are privy to the classified material in these warehouses?

Surely GSA is as the property owner

No. I work for GSA and we don't have access to classified information used by our customers in our buildings.

I meant GSA would know relocation needs unless you’re suggesting they made up a timeline without speaking to the tenants.

[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: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.

the land is available now, metro accessible, save taxpayers $1B, and it promotes development in a majority-minority county. explain to me again what the benefit of Springfield is relative to Greenbelt?

The land at Greenbelt is "available" now in the sense that it can be purchased. The land at Springfield is already US property, doesn't even need to be acquired.

But it’s already being leased by other federal entities and the cost of moving the warehouses was estimated at 1 billion dollars.

What is the source of this 1 billion? It’s not in GSA’s materials.

It is.

Where?

[Anonymous]

This decision will be reversed. The FBI will headquarter in Springfield.