FBI HQ in PG!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But nobody is saying "NOBODY WILL LIVE IN SPRINGFIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1" In fact, quite the contrary.

I am wondering how much of the opposition to Greenbelt is due to bigotry (or specifically racism) against Prince George's County, and I'm guessing it's a lot.

Me too. Also don’t understand why people so upset about a move that is years away. Find a new job before then if the commute is so untenable, or move closer, there is plenty of time to transition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But nobody is saying "NOBODY WILL LIVE IN SPRINGFIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1" In fact, quite the contrary.

I am wondering how much of the opposition to Greenbelt is due to bigotry (or specifically racism) against Prince George's County, and I'm guessing it's a lot.

Me too. Also don’t understand why people so upset about a move that is years away. Find a new job before then if the commute is so untenable, or move closer, there is plenty of time to transition.

Find a job? Well sure, we can decimate the FBI. What could go wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But nobody is saying "NOBODY WILL LIVE IN SPRINGFIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1" In fact, quite the contrary.

I am wondering how much of the opposition to Greenbelt is due to bigotry (or specifically racism) against Prince George's County, and I'm guessing it's a lot.

Me too. Also don’t understand why people so upset about a move that is years away. Find a new job before then if the commute is so untenable, or move closer, there is plenty of time to transition.

Find a job? Well sure, we can decimate the FBI. What could go wrong?

dp.. seriously doubt most of them will quit just because their HQ is moving to a distance that is still commutable. Or, they can move. That's what most people do when their HQ moves. See Amazon.

[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.

Being confident you are going to win <> "process is rigged".

It's like an athlete who's super confident they are going to win. Does that mean the refs were throwing the game for them?

I am just going by what he said. His own words. A gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. Maybe his staff can "clarify" for him. Cardin's Senate colleagues in Virginia are outraged by the process and decision.

Of course people in VA are outraged. It didn't go their way. Same for MAGA and the 2020 election.

This country is going to come to a grinding halt if people keep using the excuse that the process was questionable when the outcome doesn't turn out the way they want it to.

[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.

Being confident you are going to win <> "process is rigged".

It's like an athlete who's super confident they are going to win. Does that mean the refs were throwing the game for them?

I am just going by what he said. His own words. A gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. Maybe his staff can "clarify" for him. Cardin's Senate colleagues in Virginia are outraged by the process and decision.

Of course people in VA are outraged. It didn't go their way. Same for MAGA and the 2020 election.

This country is going to come to a grinding halt if people keep using the excuse that the process was questionable when the outcome doesn't turn out the way they want it to.

As a Springfield resident I am outraged because I find it gross that I live close to where the federal government kept pouring oil in the ground to heat a building. They should clean that up regardless of what they build on top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But nobody is saying "NOBODY WILL LIVE IN SPRINGFIELD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1" In fact, quite the contrary.

I am wondering how much of the opposition to Greenbelt is due to bigotry (or specifically racism) against Prince George's County, and I'm guessing it's a lot.

Me too. Also don’t understand why people so upset about a move that is years away. Find a new job before then if the commute is so untenable, or move closer, there is plenty of time to transition.

Find a job? Well sure, we can decimate the FBI. What could go wrong?

1 in 10 FBI employees will quit because the HQ will move from DC to Greenbelt?

[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.

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.

You lack critical understanding of how government corruption, especially PG County corruption (quoting Senator Cardin, the ‘fair process’) operates.

But no one is making an allegation of corruption that makes any sense.

This is from the director of the FBI, who knows something about fighting corruption: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24149724-message-from-the-director-to-all-fbi-employees-on-gsa-site-selection-announcement71

[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.

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.

You lack critical understanding of how government corruption, especially PG County corruption (quoting Senator Cardin, the ‘fair process’) operates.

But no one is making an allegation of corruption that makes any sense.

This is from the director of the FBI, who knows something about fighting corruption: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24149724-message-from-the-director-to-all-fbi-employees-on-gsa-site-selection-announcement71

In his unusually pointed letter to staffers, Wray said the FBI has “concerns about fairness and transparency in the process and GSA’s failure to adhere to its own site selection plan,” adding that a senior GSA executive overruled a board decision and picked land that is owned by the executive’s previous employer, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

A three-member panel had initially determined that Springfield, Virginia, was the best location. The decision of a political appointee overseeing the process to reject career officials’ “unanimous” recommendation, Wray wrote, wasn’t “‘inherently inappropriate,' but it is 'exceedingly rare.’”

“In particular, the FBI observed that, at times, outside information was inserted into the process in a manner which appeared to disproportionately favor Greenbelt, and the justifications for the departures from the panel were varied and inconsistent,” Wray said.

Politicians from Virginia echoed Wray’s concerns about the process and voiced frustration after years of fighting with their Maryland counterparts to host the new headquarters. Some called for an investigation and for the GSA’s decision to be reversed.

“It is clear that this process has been irrevocably undermined and tainted, and this decision must now be reversed,” said a statement from both of the commonwealth’s senators, eight of its House members and Gov. Glenn Youngkin.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said he plans to call for an inspector general’s investigation, saying, “This process has been rotten.”

“Yes, there should be an IG investigation, and we will call for one, but my hope would be the administration would realize this process has been rotten,” Warner told NBC News, “And, you know, the folks who work at the FBI deserve better answers; the American taxpayers deserve better answers.”

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told NBC News that he and other Virginia lawmakers were “really disappointed” by the decision and “knew that there had been political calculation to change the criteria.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/fbi-new-headquarters-greenbelt-chris-wray-potential-conflict-criticism-rcna124519

[Anonymous]

When you don't like the outcome, but you won't get anywhere complaining about the outcome, what do you do? You complain about the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you don't like the outcome, but you won't get anywhere complaining about the outcome, what do you do? You complain about the process.

If the process is above board, then the complaints are just griping. But when the process has inexplicable, last-minute changes made that change the result, then it's less defensible. It becomes indefensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you don't like the outcome, but you won't get anywhere complaining about the outcome, what do you do? You complain about the process.

If the process is above board, then the complaints are just griping. But when the process has inexplicable, last-minute changes made that change the result, then it's less defensible. It becomes indefensible.

When you don't like the outcome, but you won't get anywhere complaining about the outcome, what do you do? You complain about the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you don't like the outcome, but you won't get anywhere complaining about the outcome, what do you do? You complain about the process.

If the process is above board, then the complaints are just griping. But when the process has inexplicable, last-minute changes made that change the result, then it's less defensible. It becomes indefensible.

And yet the same result was achieved literally years ago than the one from this week. Huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you don't like the outcome, but you won't get anywhere complaining about the outcome, what do you do? You complain about the process.

If the process is above board, then the complaints are just griping. But when the process has inexplicable, last-minute changes made that change the result, then it's less defensible. It becomes indefensible.

When you don't like the outcome, but you won't get anywhere complaining about the outcome, what do you do? You complain about the process.

This only works as a criticism if you believe the process is never wrong. Sometimes, the process IS wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you don't like the outcome, but you won't get anywhere complaining about the outcome, what do you do? You complain about the process.

If the process is above board, then the complaints are just griping. But when the process has inexplicable, last-minute changes made that change the result, then it's less defensible. It becomes indefensible.

You seem stuck on this idea that there were “changes” to the process. The *real process* did not make a change. The real process is that everyone gives input and the administrator makes the final decision. And that is what happened. The panel and the criteria aren’t actually deciding factors. The administrator gets to decide on the criteria and the weight of the criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you don't like the outcome, but you won't get anywhere complaining about the outcome, what do you do? You complain about the process.

If the process is above board, then the complaints are just griping. But when the process has inexplicable, last-minute changes made that change the result, then it's less defensible. It becomes indefensible.

You seem stuck on this idea that there were “changes” to the process. The *real process* did not make a change. The real process is that everyone gives input and the administrator makes the final decision. And that is what happened. The panel and the criteria aren’t actually deciding factors. The administrator gets to decide on the criteria and the weight of the criteria.

If that’s true, what is the purpose of spending years developing criteria and having a panel review?

The FBI asked Albert to clarify her reasoning for reaching different conclusions and changing the weight of criteria. Her response was basically because I can and because I said so. I expect more from government officials. She should be able to point to evidence that supports why she made changes so late in the process.