FBI HQ in PG!

[Anonymous]

I'm a SA in the DMV and I rarely go to Quantico.

[Anonymous]

It came down to cost:

Greenbelt: $26.2 million
Springfield: $64.1million
Landover: $100 million

Springfield is more than double the cost of Greenbelt.

[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.

Probably there's some of that. But the proximity factors are not bigoted, they're just geography.

People want to punish the FBI by making their job significantly more inconvenient. Seems like a bad thing to do to me. But you do you.

It’s very on-brand of the government to make choices that appear to save money but in the long-term create inefficiencies in agency operations and higher costs. The FBI makes about 800-900 trips to quantico per month, a commute that will now take an hour longer round trip.

Commuting to Quantico shouldnt be an issue for those employees living in VA because it's only logical that they would drive to Quantico from their homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PG is perceived as much less desirable than Fairfax County (schools, taxes, housing and other dimensions). As a result, fewer Agents will volunteer for promotion to HQ, a necessary step for career advancement; they'll stay where they are in the field, reducing the pool of applicants for advancement within the agency and, arguably, eliminating talent from management and executive roles. Further, the quality of the professional support staff will suffer. There has always been a qualitative difference in clerical and other support staff in downtown D.C. agencies and those in the NoVa suburbs, which draw from different applicant pools. PG is much more like downtown in terms of who will want to work there.

In this instance, what's expected to be good for the economy in PG is not in the larger national interest.

You did a great job telling us you're racist without telling us you're a racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband works at HQ and has heard through the rumor mill tonight that the location fight is just getting started and that the general sentiment is no one should feel safe until ground is physically broken at a new site.

If your husband actually works at HQ and knew you were posting this sort of stuff, he would likely be very displeased with you. If not, I am disgusted as a taxpayer.

Let me guess, you and your husband are white and republican and he's pushing for a Trump win to make sure this move doesn't happen so that he doesn't have to go to PG County?

Not PP you replied to, but don't be ridiculous. This isn't privileged information. Of course decisions can, and have been, reversed.

Separately, I think Greenbelt is the best choice.

Exactly. The article in the Post is a bit of a tip off that the FBI is displeased. First and foremost, they want significant continued presence in downtown DC for the FBI director and senior officials for proximity to DOJ and the White House.

Great…after the last several years, it seems like the right choice is to send FBI leadership to Siberia. Greenbelt is much to close to downtown. Why not somewhere like Nome, Alaska or something on the Northern Slope?

[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.

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

Democrats, Republicans, and the director of the FBI all seem to agree that the process was severely flawed due either to conflicts of interest, corruption or politics. There will be an IG investigation as well as Congressional oversight. That will take time. GSA would be wise not to expend government resources until the outcome is settled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Probably there's some of that. But the proximity factors are not bigoted, they're just geography.

People want to punish the FBI by making their job significantly more inconvenient. Seems like a bad thing to do to me. But you do you.

It’s very on-brand of the government to make choices that appear to save money but in the long-term create inefficiencies in agency operations and higher costs. The FBI makes about 800-900 trips to quantico per month, a commute that will now take an hour longer round trip.

Commuting to Quantico shouldnt be an issue for those employees living in VA because it's only logical that they would drive to Quantico from their homes.

It might not be practical to schedule 900 meetings a month at 8 am. Plus, let's say that a SA is presenting a training course. It could very easily be in the middle of the day. For operational security reasons, the agents and career employees may not be able to work from home. Again, very impractical!

[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.

Sorry but as I posted figure skating scoring is more complex than this slop. The blue green yellow was astoundling simplistic. I could see back up stuff in Greenbelt but nothing of mission critical or operational. Greenbelt would also be a great site for the GSA furniture etc warehouses. As I posted the FBI will still have about 1000 in DC. The fact is there are wetlands in Greenbelt and buildable land is 1.5 less acres. It's the FBI not some anchor tenant for a mixed use development or mall.

I haven’t read anything about the build able land. It seems unlikely that the land directly adjacent to a metro stop would be unbuildable wetland.

You’d think land adjacent to a metro would be in demand but clearly something is wrong with the Greenbelt site for it to still be undeveloped. There has to be a reason why private developers don’t want it and the feds are the only potential buyers.

Are there any major corporations that have decided to locate their headquarters in PG County? MoCo, Arlington, Fairfax all have Fortune 500, even 100, corporate HQs. I can’t think of a single one in PG. The county is just not perceived by the private sector as a very desirable and competitive location. But it’s apparently “close enough for government work.”

Virginia almost always wins against MD or the District in any corporate relocation competition. Maryland may have gotten tired of losing and potentially used its political influence to "win" here. If so, this will come out during the investigations.

The statement from Cardin indicating how he knew MD was going to win all along is telling. Especially when you see the comments above from Warner and Kaine expressing serious concerns about the process and politics.

[Anonymous]

Happy for Maryland, happy for tax payers. All the sky is falling crap is ridiculous. NOVA is an over-paved dump full of McMansions.

[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.

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

Democrats, Republicans, and the director of the FBI all seem to agree that the process was severely flawed due either to conflicts of interest, corruption or politics. There will be an IG investigation as well as Congressional oversight. That will take time. GSA would be wise not to expend government resources until the outcome is settled.

Or you could say, as the article did: “Politicians from Virginia echoed Wray’s concerns…”, ie, the losing team, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FBI HQ should be closest to Quantico, ridiculous amount of wasted money transporting people to Maryland, fraud wast and abuse

I don’t understand this logic. No one says that the Pentagon should be located near USNA or West Point.

People at the current FBI building travel to Quantico multiple times a day. That will continue at the new location, wherever it is. Proximity is important.

for what? if is not training related, then whatever is going on at quantico that requires travel can be done at the new, larger and expanded hq.

There isn't buildable or useable land to move all the FBI operational/mission critical stuff from Quantico to Greenbelt. But heck, who cares if my taxes o to what should be a store/mall/condo/townhouse project for the FBI? Like a Reston. There were long reports that detail how the Greenbelt site is 50% less than Springfield. Chapter 5. Basically there is fema flood zone AE on a major portion of the acreage. What's AE? If a residence and you have a mortgage you are required to buy flood insurance.

Chapter 7 was Springfield. No constraints by wetlands.

[Anonymous]

The entire point of moving the FBI is a secured location. There isn’t going to be a macys or mall attached. Putting it on a metro stop will encourage the many spies in the DMV to ride the green line. Metro wins!

Quantico has more than just FBI training. You can’t used zoom and digitizing for all documents. China and Russia would love that!!!!

Building on a wetland? Stay tuned for less available land, issues with building etc.

Sure some people live there already but moving 10,000 plus people means you need infrastructure, housing and schools. It’s going to take years.

I see IG investigation. Construction and contracting challenges. More jobs moving to red stone. By the time funding and construction happens it will be 2035.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FBI HQ should be closest to Quantico, ridiculous amount of wasted money transporting people to Maryland, fraud wast and abuse

I don’t understand this logic. No one says that the Pentagon should be located near USNA or West Point.

People at the current FBI building travel to Quantico multiple times a day. That will continue at the new location, wherever it is. Proximity is important.

for what? if is not training related, then whatever is going on at quantico that requires travel can be done at the new, larger and expanded hq.

There isn't buildable or useable land to move all the FBI operational/mission critical stuff from Quantico to Greenbelt. But heck, who cares if my taxes o to what should be a store/mall/condo/townhouse project for the FBI? Like a Reston. There were long reports that detail how the Greenbelt site is 50% less than Springfield. Chapter 5. Basically there is fema flood zone AE on a major portion of the acreage. What's AE? If a residence and you have a mortgage you are required to buy flood insurance.

Chapter 7 was Springfield. No constraints by wetlands.

Nice goal post shifting.

Good luck with your campaign to convince all 200 anons on DCUM that Greenbelt was the wrong choice.

[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.

Sorry but as I posted figure skating scoring is more complex than this slop. The blue green yellow was astoundling simplistic. I could see back up stuff in Greenbelt but nothing of mission critical or operational. Greenbelt would also be a great site for the GSA furniture etc warehouses. As I posted the FBI will still have about 1000 in DC. The fact is there are wetlands in Greenbelt and buildable land is 1.5 less acres. It's the FBI not some anchor tenant for a mixed use development or mall.

I haven’t read anything about the build able land. It seems unlikely that the land directly adjacent to a metro stop would be unbuildable wetland.

You’d think land adjacent to a metro would be in demand but clearly something is wrong with the Greenbelt site for it to still be undeveloped. There has to be a reason why private developers don’t want it and the feds are the only potential buyers.

Are there any major corporations that have decided to locate their headquarters in PG County? MoCo, Arlington, Fairfax all have Fortune 500, even 100, corporate HQs. I can’t think of a single one in PG. The county is just not perceived by the private sector as a very desirable and competitive location. But it’s apparently “close enough for government work.”

Virginia almost always wins against MD or the District in any corporate relocation competition. Maryland may have gotten tired of losing and potentially used its political influence to "win" here. If so, this will come out during the investigations.

The statement from Cardin indicating how he knew MD was going to win all along is telling. Especially when you see the comments above from Warner and Kaine expressing serious concerns about the process and politics.

It’s not “telling” to think that the site that was selected last time was going to be selected again this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FBI HQ should be closest to Quantico, ridiculous amount of wasted money transporting people to Maryland, fraud wast and abuse

I don’t understand this logic. No one says that the Pentagon should be located near USNA or West Point.

People at the current FBI building travel to Quantico multiple times a day. That will continue at the new location, wherever it is. Proximity is important.

for what? if is not training related, then whatever is going on at quantico that requires travel can be done at the new, larger and expanded hq.

There isn't buildable or useable land to move all the FBI operational/mission critical stuff from Quantico to Greenbelt. But heck, who cares if my taxes o to what should be a store/mall/condo/townhouse project for the FBI? Like a Reston. There were long reports that detail how the Greenbelt site is 50% less than Springfield. Chapter 5. Basically there is fema flood zone AE on a major portion of the acreage. What's AE? If a residence and you have a mortgage you are required to buy flood insurance.

Chapter 7 was Springfield. No constraints by wetlands.

They will just landfill the wetland, probably keep a small part of it for decorative and practical reasons (good place to stick some rain runoff).

We’ve been landfilling wetlands and coastline for nearly a century in this country. It’s not a big deal from a construction perspective.

The fact that creating a landfill at Greenbelt is still $1B cheaper than Springfield should tell you something about the Springfield site: whatever is in those warehouses is crazy sensitive and $$$$$.