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.

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.

S how can you explain that it was the changed rules that made the decision when Greenbelt won the original selection way back when before Trump shut it all down?

[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.

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.

1 person making a decision of this magnitude is not good. Albert had a simplistic rating system from best to worst-blue, green, yellow. And some very subjective language in the written reports. Figure skating is more complex than FBI headquarters? Sorry to say but it's true. https://www.usfigureskating.org/about/scoring-system

You don’t know anything about government operations if you think one person ever gets to unilaterally make these types of decisions. The final memo itself was signed by Albert and the GSA General Counsel. They knew this was a controversial decision and I’m sure many, many people voiced their approval before this was signed by those two figureheads.

Further, the “three person panel” y’all are crying about ALSO used a blue-green-yellow rating system. But again, this isn’t about the “process,” it’s about an outcome you don’t like.

Look at the process, then come back to us.

If there was an actual problem with the “process,” you would be able to articulate it clearly. It’s pretty clear the GSA chose to prioritize equity and cost savings and what’s most important is that it had the right to do so. That matters more than these “process” complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That defeats the entire point of having a centralized headquarters. Virginia already has the Pentagon and the CIA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if the FBI builds in Greenbelt, the PG economy will not benefit absent the Starbucks closest to the facility. FBI employees, especially GS-14 and above, live in PG County? No, everyone who can afford to live closer will choose AA or Howard counties.

Umm. I am a GS-14 and I live like 3 miles from the Greenbelt site. Half of our neighborhood are GS-13 and up. It’s a nice place to live and my house is paid off.

[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.

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.

1 person making a decision of this magnitude is not good. Albert had a simplistic rating system from best to worst-blue, green, yellow. And some very subjective language in the written reports. Figure skating is more complex than FBI headquarters? Sorry to say but it's true. https://www.usfigureskating.org/about/scoring-system

You don’t know anything about government operations if you think one person ever gets to unilaterally make these types of decisions. The final memo itself was signed by Albert and the GSA General Counsel. They knew this was a controversial decision and I’m sure many, many people voiced their approval before this was signed by those two figureheads.

Further, the “three person panel” y’all are crying about ALSO used a blue-green-yellow rating system. But again, this isn’t about the “process,” it’s about an outcome you don’t like.

Look at the process, then come back to us.

If there was an actual problem with the “process,” you would be able to articulate it clearly. It’s pretty clear the GSA chose to prioritize equity and cost savings and what’s most important is that it had the right to do so. That matters more than these “process” complaints.

Well, you didn't look. So you don't even know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if the FBI builds in Greenbelt, the PG economy will not benefit absent the Starbucks closest to the facility. FBI employees, especially GS-14 and above, live in PG County? No, everyone who can afford to live closer will choose AA or Howard counties.

They plan to colocate it with a mixed use development, so expected direct economic spillovers would be hotels, restaurants and retail. However, it is also likely to lead to more nearby tech jobs for FBI IT contractors to have office space in close proximity to a major client.

Over the long-term, would probably also capture a portion of the FBI workforce in MD who would want a shorter commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That defeats the entire point of having a centralized headquarters. Virginia already has the Pentagon and the CIA.

You seem to think that this somehow should result in rational outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That defeats the entire point of having a centralized headquarters. Virginia already has the Pentagon and the CIA.

The Pentagon is not in Fairfax. GSA data shows PG currently has more federal employees and federal buildings than Fairfax.

I agree they’ll create a central office for senior officials and employees who work in-person with DOJ staff and move the admin/IT/support type functions to Greenbelt.

[Anonymous]

WaPo has an article today suggesting retaliation against Youngkin played a significant role. 1) Youngkin did not act enthused or try to woo the committee like Moore, and came across as extremely apathetic (why, some suggestion that he didn’t think it was worth any economic benefit to Virginia because these would be federal jobs and I guess he has something against federal jobs), 2) this is in complete contrast to all the other Virginian politicians (senators and reps) who came across as very eager to get the site and attended all meetings, and 3) Youngkin was very vocal about his displeasure of the FBI investigating Trump, including going to the media about it, which was interpreted as very anti-FBI. So politics may have played a significant role here. Moore seems to have done a great job in the short time he’s been in office in persuading the Greenbelt win while Youngkin looks like he screwed over Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WaPo has an article today suggesting retaliation against Youngkin played a significant role. 1) Youngkin did not act enthused or try to woo the committee like Moore, and came across as extremely apathetic (why, some suggestion that he didn’t think it was worth any economic benefit to Virginia because these would be federal jobs and I guess he has something against federal jobs), 2) this is in complete contrast to all the other Virginian politicians (senators and reps) who came across as very eager to get the site and attended all meetings, and 3) Youngkin was very vocal about his displeasure of the FBI investigating Trump, including going to the media about it, which was interpreted as very anti-FBI. So politics may have played a significant role here. Moore seems to have done a great job in the short time he’s been in office in persuading the Greenbelt win while Youngkin looks like he screwed over Virginia.

No, it doesn't. The article quotes people who speculate that Youngkin's statements played a role. There is a huge difference between "this happened" and "there are people who said that they think that this happened".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if the FBI builds in Greenbelt, the PG economy will not benefit absent the Starbucks closest to the facility. FBI employees, especially GS-14 and above, live in PG County? No, everyone who can afford to live closer will choose AA or Howard counties.

Umm. I am a GS-14 and I live like 3 miles from the Greenbelt site. Half of our neighborhood are GS-13 and up. It’s a nice place to live and my house is paid off.

I really have to laugh at the poster who insists that well-educated, higher income people wont live in PG county. Ummm hi *waving wildly* along with many other posters.

[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.

He essentially admitted to believing that a fair process will choose Greenbelt because Greenbelt is the best site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

So your argument is that the GSA should give the FBI what it wants, on grounds that the FBI wants it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if the FBI builds in Greenbelt, the PG economy will not benefit absent the Starbucks closest to the facility. FBI employees, especially GS-14 and above, live in PG County? No, everyone who can afford to live closer will choose AA or Howard counties.

Umm. I am a GS-14 and I live like 3 miles from the Greenbelt site. Half of our neighborhood are GS-13 and up. It’s a nice place to live and my house is paid off.

So is mine in Springfield and I’m a teacher and sole breadwinner. Honestly, I’m not sure I want the FBI here, and Greenbelt is nice, but PGCS are not as good as FCPS from my friend’s experiences there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

So your argument is that the GSA should give the FBI what it wants, on grounds that the FBI wants it?

Well, why not? Is your argument that the GSA should not prioritize the FBI requests, in order to punish the FBI for not investigating the things some people want it to and for investigating the things that some people don't want it to?

Why do we hate the FBI and want to stick it in them with an inconveniently located HQ far from the places that they go to frequently?