FBI HQ in PG!

[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.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

[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.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

I would take that to mean he knew he had the best site.

Honestly these accusations of the process being “rigged” just sound like whining, and reversing the decision will look very, very bad. It would basically be saying “we’re just going to reverse this qualified black lady’s decision even though she clearly had the final say and laid everything out.” That’s not a good look. There’s no accusation of quid pro quo or anything that makes sense, and the GSA decision pretty clearly explains why it chose the site it chose. Reasonable people can obviously disagree on which site was best but there’s no “slam dunk” here proving that Springfield was better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Mayor Stoney is trying to score a political point but he is out of sync with his home state Democratic senators who were both governors. There should be a united front to get the FBI HQ to Virginia.

[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.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

I would take that to mean he knew he had the best site.

Honestly these accusations of the process being “rigged” just sound like whining, and reversing the decision will look very, very bad. It would basically be saying “we’re just going to reverse this qualified black lady’s decision even though she clearly had the final say and laid everything out.” That’s not a good look. There’s no accusation of quid pro quo or anything that makes sense, and the GSA decision pretty clearly explains why it chose the site it chose. Reasonable people can obviously disagree on which site was best but there’s no “slam dunk” here proving that Springfield was better.

The rules were changed in the middle of the process to benefit the Greenbelt site. The FBI director chooses his words carefully. If the process had been satisfactory, he would accept the result.

[Anonymous]

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

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

Shouldn't the customer's (FBI) needs come first? The FBI has a very important mission for national security and law enforcement.

[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?

Even if the decision stands, which it will not, FBI personnel will relocate to Howard, AA, Montgomery Counties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This decision will be reversed. The FBI will headquarter in Springfield.

Guaranteed they will do what politics does best, split the baby. MD, DC and VA will all get something.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read all the debate here, but heard an NPR story which indicated that the costs of the Greenbelt site were substantially (like $1 billion!) lower than Springfield and that it's within walking distance of the Metro whereas Springfield would require a shuttle for employees. Those two factors seem like a slam dunk for Greenbelt. What am I missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the debate here, but heard an NPR story which indicated that the costs of the Greenbelt site were substantially (like $1 billion!) lower than Springfield and that it's within walking distance of the Metro whereas Springfield would require a shuttle for employees. Those two factors seem like a slam dunk for Greenbelt. What am I missing?

That a bunch of people on this forum are butthurt and racist.

Seriously anytime a discussion of Pg county comes up on this board the most vile racist people come out to play. It’s gross!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the debate here, but heard an NPR story which indicated that the costs of the Greenbelt site were substantially (like $1 billion!) lower than Springfield and that it's within walking distance of the Metro whereas Springfield would require a shuttle for employees. Those two factors seem like a slam dunk for Greenbelt. What am I missing?

Sour grapes

[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.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

I would take that to mean he knew he had the best site.

Honestly these accusations of the process being “rigged” just sound like whining, and reversing the decision will look very, very bad. It would basically be saying “we’re just going to reverse this qualified black lady’s decision even though she clearly had the final say and laid everything out.” That’s not a good look. There’s no accusation of quid pro quo or anything that makes sense, and the GSA decision pretty clearly explains why it chose the site it chose. Reasonable people can obviously disagree on which site was best but there’s no “slam dunk” here proving that Springfield was better.

The rules were changed in the middle of the process to benefit the Greenbelt site. The FBI director chooses his words carefully. If the process had been satisfactory, he would accept the result.

If what you say is true (not looking it up and not necessarily believing you, honestly), it’s most likely that the GSA rules give the administrator leeway to make the decision based on any criteria she wants, as long as it is a well-reasoned and reasonable decision. So the “rules” are not the controlling factor. This makes sense if, for example, the Administrator decides that a billion dollars of cost savings overrides what the FBI wants, which appears to be the case here.

[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.

Senator Cardin from Maryland said it best: "We knew we were going to win. It was a fair process." Seriously, who writes his talking points? He essentially admitted that the process was rigged.

I would take that to mean he knew he had the best site.

Honestly these accusations of the process being “rigged” just sound like whining, and reversing the decision will look very, very bad. It would basically be saying “we’re just going to reverse this qualified black lady’s decision even though she clearly had the final say and laid everything out.” That’s not a good look. There’s no accusation of quid pro quo or anything that makes sense, and the GSA decision pretty clearly explains why it chose the site it chose. Reasonable people can obviously disagree on which site was best but there’s no “slam dunk” here proving that Springfield was better.

The rules were changed in the middle of the process to benefit the Greenbelt site. The FBI director chooses his words carefully. If the process had been satisfactory, he would accept the result.

If what you say is true (not looking it up and not necessarily believing you, honestly), it’s most likely that the GSA rules give the administrator leeway to make the decision based on any criteria she wants, as long as it is a well-reasoned and reasonable decision. So the “rules” are not the controlling factor. This makes sense if, for example, the Administrator decides that a billion dollars of cost savings overrides what the FBI wants, which appears to be the case here.

You can believe it, the rules were changed midway - and then when that didn't work, more rules were changed at the end.

It wasn't the "billion dollar savings" that Albert pointed to, that wasn't biggest factor.

Do you remember when Wray was appointed, that one of his main goals was to stay out of the news and not make his name a household one, like the previous director had done. And he has pretty much succeeded. So his letter about concerns about the process is extraordinary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the debate here, but heard an NPR story which indicated that the costs of the Greenbelt site were substantially (like $1 billion!) lower than Springfield and that it's within walking distance of the Metro whereas Springfield would require a shuttle for employees. Those two factors seem like a slam dunk for Greenbelt. What am I missing?

The only reference I’ve seen to $1 billion is a figure made up by Maryland politicians. Something about construction being able to start immediately at Greenbelt (a lie) and construction delayed at the Springfield site. The truth, according to GSA, is that construction won’t start for years at either site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the debate here, but heard an NPR story which indicated that the costs of the Greenbelt site were substantially (like $1 billion!) lower than Springfield and that it's within walking distance of the Metro whereas Springfield would require a shuttle for employees. Those two factors seem like a slam dunk for Greenbelt. What am I missing?

That a bunch of people on this forum are butthurt and racist.

Seriously anytime a discussion of Pg county comes up on this board the most vile racist people come out to play. It’s gross!

A lot of unfortunate assumptions. We have significant equity needs in Fairfax County that the Springfield site would help address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the debate here, but heard an NPR story which indicated that the costs of the Greenbelt site were substantially (like $1 billion!) lower than Springfield and that it's within walking distance of the Metro whereas Springfield would require a shuttle for employees. Those two factors seem like a slam dunk for Greenbelt. What am I missing?

The only reference I’ve seen to $1 billion is a figure made up by Maryland politicians. Something about construction being able to start immediately at Greenbelt (a lie) and construction delayed at the Springfield site. The truth, according to GSA, is that construction won’t start for years at either site.

In terms of schedule risk, it is important to understand that the Government already owns the Springfield site. However, GSA would need to acquire the Greenbelt site. That could take quite a bit of time.

While I may have missed it, I have not seen any discussion yet about how GSA gets funded and paid. If GSA would reap a windfall for its agency for the work it would take to acquire the Greenbelt site, then that could explain the last-minute change to reverse the panel's decision for the site to be located in Springfield. GSA would have a financial interest/benefit to go with Greenbelt despite the wishes of the FBI and its employees. This should be investigated if there is anything to this.