FBI HQ in PG!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PG = Pervasive Graft County

Isn't Springfield in Fairfax County where the County seat is Fairfax? That city whose mayor was distributing meth through a website used by gay men to arrange casual sexual encounters? https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/crime/former-fairfax-city-mayor-drug-charges-police-say/65-ffa28727-58c2-4380-b93d-a355c05c01bc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Route 1 will be really nice in 10 years.

It will always be a trash-strewn, crime-infested, dump.

Yet another Virginian who has never visited the area, but slings outdated lies at PG County to hide their racist bias against "those people"

Do you deny that PG has the worst reputation for government corruption in the Washington metropolitan area? That’s a huge drag on the perception of PG as a good place for companies and organisations to locate there.

Yes, that concept is very outdated. When Rushern Baker was elected in 2010 (13 years ago!), he started eliminating the policies that created the corrupt reputation. He eliminated the "pay to play" policies and started more transparent policies. Angela Alsobrooks has continued the clean up and the county is currently no worse than other beltway counties.

If you haven't been paying attention to the news for the last 13 years, I can understand why you still have that perception.

That is not saying much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PG = Pervasive Graft County

Isn't Springfield in Fairfax County where the County seat is Fairfax? That city whose mayor was distributing meth through a website used by gay men to arrange casual sexual encounters? https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/crime/former-fairfax-city-mayor-drug-charges-police-say/65-ffa28727-58c2-4380-b93d-a355c05c01bc

Fairfax City and its mayor has nothing to do with unincorporated Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Route 1 will be really nice in 10 years.

It will always be a trash-strewn, crime-infested, dump.

Yet another Virginian who has never visited the area, but slings outdated lies at PG County to hide their racist bias against "those people"

Imagine those 91 Virginia counties that are poorer than Prince George’s.

Most of them have lower costs of living, much lower tax burdens, more affordable housing, better traffic, more efficient local governments, and an overall high quality of life. Also, folks on average are much nicer than the smug a-holes who infest the DC area.

and yet, even with the lcol, they are still poorer.

So?

Just shows what a wealthy state Maryland is. PG is only middle of the pack of Md but at the tippy top if it was in Va.

They should give it to Va. I didn’t realize how much richer Md is plus basically owning DC a the Potomac River all the best privates and country clubs, the best state Capitol a better higher education community .. all the pro franchises. ..A Big Ten public . Va doesn’t deserve one more humiliation.

These are just not good reasons for changing a decision that will cost millions of dollars extra for taxpayers.

MD has those benefits, but Virginia is still the economic development region of the Washington suburbs. There's a lot of money in NoVa and comparing the proposed location with counties in RoVa that are outside of the Washington metro area are just not reasonable comparisons. The GSA chose the site that would cost the federal government the least amount of money and would develop the project the fastest. Major cost savings and major time savings are two of the priorities for the GSA when making real estate decisions and they used them to make this decision. Springfield is too expensive and too time-costly to develop a reasonable FBI HQ in a reasonable amount of time.

And that is what the IG and Congressional investigations are going to find.

The process was flawed. The allegations include GSA changing the criteria in the middle of the competition to get its desired result. GSA political appointees can try to spin all they want after-the-fact but there are career employees at GSA who will tell the IG and Congress all of the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Route 1 will be really nice in 10 years.

It will always be a trash-strewn, crime-infested, dump.

Yet another Virginian who has never visited the area, but slings outdated lies at PG County to hide their racist bias against "those people"

Imagine those 91 Virginia counties that are poorer than Prince George’s.

Most of them have lower costs of living, much lower tax burdens, more affordable housing, better traffic, more efficient local governments, and an overall high quality of life. Also, folks on average are much nicer than the smug a-holes who infest the DC area.

and yet, even with the lcol, they are still poorer.

So?

Just shows what a wealthy state Maryland is. PG is only middle of the pack of Md but at the tippy top if it was in Va.

They should give it to Va. I didn’t realize how much richer Md is plus basically owning DC a the Potomac River all the best privates and country clubs, the best state Capitol a better higher education community .. all the pro franchises. ..A Big Ten public . Va doesn’t deserve one more humiliation.

These are just not good reasons for changing a decision that will cost millions of dollars extra for taxpayers.

MD has those benefits, but Virginia is still the economic development region of the Washington suburbs. There's a lot of money in NoVa and comparing the proposed location with counties in RoVa that are outside of the Washington metro area are just not reasonable comparisons. The GSA chose the site that would cost the federal government the least amount of money and would develop the project the fastest. Major cost savings and major time savings are two of the priorities for the GSA when making real estate decisions and they used them to make this decision. Springfield is too expensive and too time-costly to develop a reasonable FBI HQ in a reasonable amount of time.

And that is what the IG and Congressional investigations are going to find.

The process was flawed. The allegations include GSA changing the criteria in the middle of the competition to get its desired result. GSA political appointees can try to spin all they want after-the-fact but there are career employees at GSA who will tell the IG and Congress all of the facts.

Let's hope so!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Route 1 will be really nice in 10 years.

It will always be a trash-strewn, crime-infested, dump.

Yet another Virginian who has never visited the area, but slings outdated lies at PG County to hide their racist bias against "those people"

Imagine those 91 Virginia counties that are poorer than Prince George’s.

Most of them have lower costs of living, much lower tax burdens, more affordable housing, better traffic, more efficient local governments, and an overall high quality of life. Also, folks on average are much nicer than the smug a-holes who infest the DC area.

and yet, even with the lcol, they are still poorer.

So?

Just shows what a wealthy state Maryland is. PG is only middle of the pack of Md but at the tippy top if it was in Va.

They should give it to Va. I didn’t realize how much richer Md is plus basically owning DC a the Potomac River all the best privates and country clubs, the best state Capitol a better higher education community .. all the pro franchises. ..A Big Ten public . Va doesn’t deserve one more humiliation.

These are just not good reasons for changing a decision that will cost millions of dollars extra for taxpayers.

MD has those benefits, but Virginia is still the economic development region of the Washington suburbs. There's a lot of money in NoVa and comparing the proposed location with counties in RoVa that are outside of the Washington metro area are just not reasonable comparisons. The GSA chose the site that would cost the federal government the least amount of money and would develop the project the fastest. Major cost savings and major time savings are two of the priorities for the GSA when making real estate decisions and they used them to make this decision. Springfield is too expensive and too time-costly to develop a reasonable FBI HQ in a reasonable amount of time.

And that is what the IG and Congressional investigations are going to find.

The process was flawed. The allegations include GSA changing the criteria in the middle of the competition to get its desired result. GSA political appointees can try to spin all they want after-the-fact but there are career employees at GSA who will tell the IG and Congress all of the facts.

You can try to convince yourself of that all you want, but it isn't true and won't make a difference. The point is that the panel was never the deciding factor. The panel's recommendation is one of several sources that the GSA was using to research the issue. This is like buying a house. The inspection is one source or input on whether to buy the house, but just because the inspection says one thing, does not mean that the buyer is necessarily going to agree with the inspector for whether the house is right or not, the GSA administrator and Commissioner of Public Buildings did not necessarily have to follow the recommendation of the panel. That was never a stipulation. So whether the weighting of the factors that the panel used were kept or changed, was not a change in the process. It was always the case that the panel would research and make a recommendation and the Commissioner and agency Administrator would take that as one piece of input and make a decision based on that and other input. So the weighting of the criteria by the panel was not a critical determination of the value of the panel's recommendation.

Managers and executives frequently ask for input and studies and research from staff members. And even when the staff is 100% behind one choice or decision, it does not necessarily impact how the executive or manager will make their final decision. To assume that the panel of staffers decision was guaranteeing the end result you want makes it clear that you don't know how government agencies make decisions. Those of us who are career federal employments know full well that we can make recommendations all we want and very definitively, but administrators and political appointees will often make different decisions than we would have. It's part of working for the federal government with politically appointed agency heads and management.

[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:Route 1 will be really nice in 10 years.

It will always be a trash-strewn, crime-infested, dump.

Yet another Virginian who has never visited the area, but slings outdated lies at PG County to hide their racist bias against "those people"

Imagine those 91 Virginia counties that are poorer than Prince George’s.

Most of them have lower costs of living, much lower tax burdens, more affordable housing, better traffic, more efficient local governments, and an overall high quality of life. Also, folks on average are much nicer than the smug a-holes who infest the DC area.

and yet, even with the lcol, they are still poorer.

So?

Just shows what a wealthy state Maryland is. PG is only middle of the pack of Md but at the tippy top if it was in Va.

They should give it to Va. I didn’t realize how much richer Md is plus basically owning DC a the Potomac River all the best privates and country clubs, the best state Capitol a better higher education community .. all the pro franchises. ..A Big Ten public . Va doesn’t deserve one more humiliation.

These are just not good reasons for changing a decision that will cost millions of dollars extra for taxpayers.

MD has those benefits, but Virginia is still the economic development region of the Washington suburbs. There's a lot of money in NoVa and comparing the proposed location with counties in RoVa that are outside of the Washington metro area are just not reasonable comparisons. The GSA chose the site that would cost the federal government the least amount of money and would develop the project the fastest. Major cost savings and major time savings are two of the priorities for the GSA when making real estate decisions and they used them to make this decision. Springfield is too expensive and too time-costly to develop a reasonable FBI HQ in a reasonable amount of time.

And that is what the IG and Congressional investigations are going to find.

The process was flawed. The allegations include GSA changing the criteria in the middle of the competition to get its desired result. GSA political appointees can try to spin all they want after-the-fact but there are career employees at GSA who will tell the IG and Congress all of the facts.

You can try to convince yourself of that all you want, but it isn't true and won't make a difference. The point is that the panel was never the deciding factor. The panel's recommendation is one of several sources that the GSA was using to research the issue. This is like buying a house. The inspection is one source or input on whether to buy the house, but just because the inspection says one thing, does not mean that the buyer is necessarily going to agree with the inspector for whether the house is right or not, the GSA administrator and Commissioner of Public Buildings did not necessarily have to follow the recommendation of the panel. That was never a stipulation. So whether the weighting of the factors that the panel used were kept or changed, was not a change in the process. It was always the case that the panel would research and make a recommendation and the Commissioner and agency Administrator would take that as one piece of input and make a decision based on that and other input. So the weighting of the criteria by the panel was not a critical determination of the value of the panel's recommendation.

Managers and executives frequently ask for input and studies and research from staff members. And even when the staff is 100% behind one choice or decision, it does not necessarily impact how the executive or manager will make their final decision. To assume that the panel of staffers decision was guaranteeing the end result you want makes it clear that you don't know how government agencies make decisions. Those of us who are career federal employments know full well that we can make recommendations all we want and very definitively, but administrators and political appointees will often make different decisions than we would have. It's part of working for the federal government with politically appointed agency heads and management.

I am not questioning the power that political appointees possess at agencies particularly GSA. A prior GSA administrator denied the results of the 2020 election and refused to provide the incoming administration with funding needed to transition government for an extended period of time. The career employees could do nothing, nothing at all.

Here, there are allegations of a severely flawed process by the nonpolitical Director of the FBI plus members of Congress from both major political parties. I will not repeat those allegations but you can find the details earlier on this thread if you are interested.

The question here is whether the politicos appropriately used their power and discretion. The answer will come down to how well they documented their decisions. Based on the allegations that have been made, the politicos were sloppy and a key decisionmaker did not even stick around long enough to be subject to oversight.

If the agency HQ in question was for the Dep't of Agriculture, no one would care. But GSA is going up against the FBI.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately it’s over. Any change will appear racist.

[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:Route 1 will be really nice in 10 years.

It will always be a trash-strewn, crime-infested, dump.

Yet another Virginian who has never visited the area, but slings outdated lies at PG County to hide their racist bias against "those people"

Imagine those 91 Virginia counties that are poorer than Prince George’s.

Most of them have lower costs of living, much lower tax burdens, more affordable housing, better traffic, more efficient local governments, and an overall high quality of life. Also, folks on average are much nicer than the smug a-holes who infest the DC area.

and yet, even with the lcol, they are still poorer.

So?

Just shows what a wealthy state Maryland is. PG is only middle of the pack of Md but at the tippy top if it was in Va.

They should give it to Va. I didn’t realize how much richer Md is plus basically owning DC a the Potomac River all the best privates and country clubs, the best state Capitol a better higher education community .. all the pro franchises. ..A Big Ten public . Va doesn’t deserve one more humiliation.

These are just not good reasons for changing a decision that will cost millions of dollars extra for taxpayers.

MD has those benefits, but Virginia is still the economic development region of the Washington suburbs. There's a lot of money in NoVa and comparing the proposed location with counties in RoVa that are outside of the Washington metro area are just not reasonable comparisons. The GSA chose the site that would cost the federal government the least amount of money and would develop the project the fastest. Major cost savings and major time savings are two of the priorities for the GSA when making real estate decisions and they used them to make this decision. Springfield is too expensive and too time-costly to develop a reasonable FBI HQ in a reasonable amount of time.

And that is what the IG and Congressional investigations are going to find.

The process was flawed. The allegations include GSA changing the criteria in the middle of the competition to get its desired result. GSA political appointees can try to spin all they want after-the-fact but there are career employees at GSA who will tell the IG and Congress all of the facts.

You can try to convince yourself of that all you want, but it isn't true and won't make a difference. The point is that the panel was never the deciding factor. The panel's recommendation is one of several sources that the GSA was using to research the issue. This is like buying a house. The inspection is one source or input on whether to buy the house, but just because the inspection says one thing, does not mean that the buyer is necessarily going to agree with the inspector for whether the house is right or not, the GSA administrator and Commissioner of Public Buildings did not necessarily have to follow the recommendation of the panel. That was never a stipulation. So whether the weighting of the factors that the panel used were kept or changed, was not a change in the process. It was always the case that the panel would research and make a recommendation and the Commissioner and agency Administrator would take that as one piece of input and make a decision based on that and other input. So the weighting of the criteria by the panel was not a critical determination of the value of the panel's recommendation.

Managers and executives frequently ask for input and studies and research from staff members. And even when the staff is 100% behind one choice or decision, it does not necessarily impact how the executive or manager will make their final decision. To assume that the panel of staffers decision was guaranteeing the end result you want makes it clear that you don't know how government agencies make decisions. Those of us who are career federal employments know full well that we can make recommendations all we want and very definitively, but administrators and political appointees will often make different decisions than we would have. It's part of working for the federal government with politically appointed agency heads and management.

I am not questioning the power that political appointees possess at agencies particularly GSA. A prior GSA administrator denied the results of the 2020 election and refused to provide the incoming administration with funding needed to transition government for an extended period of time. The career employees could do nothing, nothing at all.

Here, there are allegations of a severely flawed process by the nonpolitical Director of the FBI plus members of Congress from both major political parties. I will not repeat those allegations but you can find the details earlier on this thread if you are interested.

The question here is whether the politicos appropriately used their power and discretion. The answer will come down to how well they documented their decisions. Based on the allegations that have been made, the politicos were sloppy and a key decisionmaker did not even stick around long enough to be subject to oversight.

If the agency HQ in question was for the Dep't of Agriculture, no one would care. But GSA is going up against the FBI.

The FBI Director is a political appointee, meaning the POTUS who appointed the person picked that person because of their politics. Do you think Trump would've picked a liberal friendly FBI Director when he fired Comey?

[Anonymous]

At this point you guys are obsessed.

[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:Route 1 will be really nice in 10 years.

It will always be a trash-strewn, crime-infested, dump.

Yet another Virginian who has never visited the area, but slings outdated lies at PG County to hide their racist bias against "those people"

Imagine those 91 Virginia counties that are poorer than Prince George’s.

Most of them have lower costs of living, much lower tax burdens, more affordable housing, better traffic, more efficient local governments, and an overall high quality of life. Also, folks on average are much nicer than the smug a-holes who infest the DC area.

and yet, even with the lcol, they are still poorer.

So?

Just shows what a wealthy state Maryland is. PG is only middle of the pack of Md but at the tippy top if it was in Va.

They should give it to Va. I didn’t realize how much richer Md is plus basically owning DC a the Potomac River all the best privates and country clubs, the best state Capitol a better higher education community .. all the pro franchises. ..A Big Ten public . Va doesn’t deserve one more humiliation.

These are just not good reasons for changing a decision that will cost millions of dollars extra for taxpayers.

MD has those benefits, but Virginia is still the economic development region of the Washington suburbs. There's a lot of money in NoVa and comparing the proposed location with counties in RoVa that are outside of the Washington metro area are just not reasonable comparisons. The GSA chose the site that would cost the federal government the least amount of money and would develop the project the fastest. Major cost savings and major time savings are two of the priorities for the GSA when making real estate decisions and they used them to make this decision. Springfield is too expensive and too time-costly to develop a reasonable FBI HQ in a reasonable amount of time.

And that is what the IG and Congressional investigations are going to find.

The process was flawed. The allegations include GSA changing the criteria in the middle of the competition to get its desired result. GSA political appointees can try to spin all they want after-the-fact but there are career employees at GSA who will tell the IG and Congress all of the facts.

You can try to convince yourself of that all you want, but it isn't true and won't make a difference. The point is that the panel was never the deciding factor. The panel's recommendation is one of several sources that the GSA was using to research the issue. This is like buying a house. The inspection is one source or input on whether to buy the house, but just because the inspection says one thing, does not mean that the buyer is necessarily going to agree with the inspector for whether the house is right or not, the GSA administrator and Commissioner of Public Buildings did not necessarily have to follow the recommendation of the panel. That was never a stipulation. So whether the weighting of the factors that the panel used were kept or changed, was not a change in the process. It was always the case that the panel would research and make a recommendation and the Commissioner and agency Administrator would take that as one piece of input and make a decision based on that and other input. So the weighting of the criteria by the panel was not a critical determination of the value of the panel's recommendation.

Managers and executives frequently ask for input and studies and research from staff members. And even when the staff is 100% behind one choice or decision, it does not necessarily impact how the executive or manager will make their final decision. To assume that the panel of staffers decision was guaranteeing the end result you want makes it clear that you don't know how government agencies make decisions. Those of us who are career federal employments know full well that we can make recommendations all we want and very definitively, but administrators and political appointees will often make different decisions than we would have. It's part of working for the federal government with politically appointed agency heads and management.

I am not questioning the power that political appointees possess at agencies particularly GSA. A prior GSA administrator denied the results of the 2020 election and refused to provide the incoming administration with funding needed to transition government for an extended period of time. The career employees could do nothing, nothing at all.

Here, there are allegations of a severely flawed process by the nonpolitical Director of the FBI plus members of Congress from both major political parties. I will not repeat those allegations but you can find the details earlier on this thread if you are interested.

The question here is whether the politicos appropriately used their power and discretion. The answer will come down to how well they documented their decisions. Based on the allegations that have been made, the politicos were sloppy and a key decisionmaker did not even stick around long enough to be subject to oversight.

If the agency HQ in question was for the Dep't of Agriculture, no one would care. But GSA is going up against the FBI.

Hold up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation

Plus this whole "Do you know who I am?!?!" argument is bonkers. Yes, the FBI is the FBI. But the GSA is the GSA.

[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:Route 1 will be really nice in 10 years.

It will always be a trash-strewn, crime-infested, dump.

Yet another Virginian who has never visited the area, but slings outdated lies at PG County to hide their racist bias against "those people"

Imagine those 91 Virginia counties that are poorer than Prince George’s.

Most of them have lower costs of living, much lower tax burdens, more affordable housing, better traffic, more efficient local governments, and an overall high quality of life. Also, folks on average are much nicer than the smug a-holes who infest the DC area.

and yet, even with the lcol, they are still poorer.

So?

Just shows what a wealthy state Maryland is. PG is only middle of the pack of Md but at the tippy top if it was in Va.

They should give it to Va. I didn’t realize how much richer Md is plus basically owning DC a the Potomac River all the best privates and country clubs, the best state Capitol a better higher education community .. all the pro franchises. ..A Big Ten public . Va doesn’t deserve one more humiliation.

These are just not good reasons for changing a decision that will cost millions of dollars extra for taxpayers.

MD has those benefits, but Virginia is still the economic development region of the Washington suburbs. There's a lot of money in NoVa and comparing the proposed location with counties in RoVa that are outside of the Washington metro area are just not reasonable comparisons. The GSA chose the site that would cost the federal government the least amount of money and would develop the project the fastest. Major cost savings and major time savings are two of the priorities for the GSA when making real estate decisions and they used them to make this decision. Springfield is too expensive and too time-costly to develop a reasonable FBI HQ in a reasonable amount of time.

And that is what the IG and Congressional investigations are going to find.

The process was flawed. The allegations include GSA changing the criteria in the middle of the competition to get its desired result. GSA political appointees can try to spin all they want after-the-fact but there are career employees at GSA who will tell the IG and Congress all of the facts.

You can try to convince yourself of that all you want, but it isn't true and won't make a difference. The point is that the panel was never the deciding factor. The panel's recommendation is one of several sources that the GSA was using to research the issue. This is like buying a house. The inspection is one source or input on whether to buy the house, but just because the inspection says one thing, does not mean that the buyer is necessarily going to agree with the inspector for whether the house is right or not, the GSA administrator and Commissioner of Public Buildings did not necessarily have to follow the recommendation of the panel. That was never a stipulation. So whether the weighting of the factors that the panel used were kept or changed, was not a change in the process. It was always the case that the panel would research and make a recommendation and the Commissioner and agency Administrator would take that as one piece of input and make a decision based on that and other input. So the weighting of the criteria by the panel was not a critical determination of the value of the panel's recommendation.

Managers and executives frequently ask for input and studies and research from staff members. And even when the staff is 100% behind one choice or decision, it does not necessarily impact how the executive or manager will make their final decision. To assume that the panel of staffers decision was guaranteeing the end result you want makes it clear that you don't know how government agencies make decisions. Those of us who are career federal employments know full well that we can make recommendations all we want and very definitively, but administrators and political appointees will often make different decisions than we would have. It's part of working for the federal government with politically appointed agency heads and management.

I am not questioning the power that political appointees possess at agencies particularly GSA. A prior GSA administrator denied the results of the 2020 election and refused to provide the incoming administration with funding needed to transition government for an extended period of time. The career employees could do nothing, nothing at all.

Here, there are allegations of a severely flawed process by the nonpolitical Director of the FBI plus members of Congress from both major political parties. I will not repeat those allegations but you can find the details earlier on this thread if you are interested.

The question here is whether the politicos appropriately used their power and discretion. The answer will come down to how well they documented their decisions. Based on the allegations that have been made, the politicos were sloppy and a key decisionmaker did not even stick around long enough to be subject to oversight.

If the agency HQ in question was for the Dep't of Agriculture, no one would care. But GSA is going up against the FBI.

Hold up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation

Plus this whole "Do you know who I am?!?!" argument is bonkers. Yes, the FBI is the FBI. But the GSA is the GSA.

When the GSA political decision maker was there only briefly between her jobs at Metro (which owns the Greenbelt property) and working for DC’s Muriel Barry Bowser, that doesn’t create trust in the “decider” or in the process.

[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:Route 1 will be really nice in 10 years.

It will always be a trash-strewn, crime-infested, dump.

Yet another Virginian who has never visited the area, but slings outdated lies at PG County to hide their racist bias against "those people"

Imagine those 91 Virginia counties that are poorer than Prince George’s.

Most of them have lower costs of living, much lower tax burdens, more affordable housing, better traffic, more efficient local governments, and an overall high quality of life. Also, folks on average are much nicer than the smug a-holes who infest the DC area.

and yet, even with the lcol, they are still poorer.

So?

Just shows what a wealthy state Maryland is. PG is only middle of the pack of Md but at the tippy top if it was in Va.

They should give it to Va. I didn’t realize how much richer Md is plus basically owning DC a the Potomac River all the best privates and country clubs, the best state Capitol a better higher education community .. all the pro franchises. ..A Big Ten public . Va doesn’t deserve one more humiliation.

These are just not good reasons for changing a decision that will cost millions of dollars extra for taxpayers.

MD has those benefits, but Virginia is still the economic development region of the Washington suburbs. There's a lot of money in NoVa and comparing the proposed location with counties in RoVa that are outside of the Washington metro area are just not reasonable comparisons. The GSA chose the site that would cost the federal government the least amount of money and would develop the project the fastest. Major cost savings and major time savings are two of the priorities for the GSA when making real estate decisions and they used them to make this decision. Springfield is too expensive and too time-costly to develop a reasonable FBI HQ in a reasonable amount of time.

And that is what the IG and Congressional investigations are going to find.

The process was flawed. The allegations include GSA changing the criteria in the middle of the competition to get its desired result. GSA political appointees can try to spin all they want after-the-fact but there are career employees at GSA who will tell the IG and Congress all of the facts.

You can try to convince yourself of that all you want, but it isn't true and won't make a difference. The point is that the panel was never the deciding factor. The panel's recommendation is one of several sources that the GSA was using to research the issue. This is like buying a house. The inspection is one source or input on whether to buy the house, but just because the inspection says one thing, does not mean that the buyer is necessarily going to agree with the inspector for whether the house is right or not, the GSA administrator and Commissioner of Public Buildings did not necessarily have to follow the recommendation of the panel. That was never a stipulation. So whether the weighting of the factors that the panel used were kept or changed, was not a change in the process. It was always the case that the panel would research and make a recommendation and the Commissioner and agency Administrator would take that as one piece of input and make a decision based on that and other input. So the weighting of the criteria by the panel was not a critical determination of the value of the panel's recommendation.

Managers and executives frequently ask for input and studies and research from staff members. And even when the staff is 100% behind one choice or decision, it does not necessarily impact how the executive or manager will make their final decision. To assume that the panel of staffers decision was guaranteeing the end result you want makes it clear that you don't know how government agencies make decisions. Those of us who are career federal employments know full well that we can make recommendations all we want and very definitively, but administrators and political appointees will often make different decisions than we would have. It's part of working for the federal government with politically appointed agency heads and management.

I am not questioning the power that political appointees possess at agencies particularly GSA. A prior GSA administrator denied the results of the 2020 election and refused to provide the incoming administration with funding needed to transition government for an extended period of time. The career employees could do nothing, nothing at all.

Here, there are allegations of a severely flawed process by the nonpolitical Director of the FBI plus members of Congress from both major political parties. I will not repeat those allegations but you can find the details earlier on this thread if you are interested.

The question here is whether the politicos appropriately used their power and discretion. The answer will come down to how well they documented their decisions. Based on the allegations that have been made, the politicos were sloppy and a key decisionmaker did not even stick around long enough to be subject to oversight.

If the agency HQ in question was for the Dep't of Agriculture, no one would care. But GSA is going up against the FBI.

Hold up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation

Plus this whole "Do you know who I am?!?!" argument is bonkers. Yes, the FBI is the FBI. But the GSA is the GSA.

When the GSA political decision maker was there only briefly between her jobs at Metro (which owns the Greenbelt property) and working for DC’s Muriel Barry Bowser, that doesn’t create trust in the “decider” or in the process.

Meaning: you have no trust. But that's ok, your trust or lack thereof is irrelevant, just like mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PG = Pervasive Graft County

Isn't Springfield in Fairfax County where the County seat is Fairfax? That city whose mayor was distributing meth through a website used by gay men to arrange casual sexual encounters? https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/crime/former-fairfax-city-mayor-drug-charges-police-say/65-ffa28727-58c2-4380-b93d-a355c05c01bc

Guess the FBI could help VA stop crime, since they have even more there than MD.

[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:Route 1 will be really nice in 10 years.

It will always be a trash-strewn, crime-infested, dump.

Yet another Virginian who has never visited the area, but slings outdated lies at PG County to hide their racist bias against "those people"

Imagine those 91 Virginia counties that are poorer than Prince George’s.

Most of them have lower costs of living, much lower tax burdens, more affordable housing, better traffic, more efficient local governments, and an overall high quality of life. Also, folks on average are much nicer than the smug a-holes who infest the DC area.

and yet, even with the lcol, they are still poorer.

So?

Just shows what a wealthy state Maryland is. PG is only middle of the pack of Md but at the tippy top if it was in Va.

They should give it to Va. I didn’t realize how much richer Md is plus basically owning DC a the Potomac River all the best privates and country clubs, the best state Capitol a better higher education community .. all the pro franchises. ..A Big Ten public . Va doesn’t deserve one more humiliation.

These are just not good reasons for changing a decision that will cost millions of dollars extra for taxpayers.

MD has those benefits, but Virginia is still the economic development region of the Washington suburbs. There's a lot of money in NoVa and comparing the proposed location with counties in RoVa that are outside of the Washington metro area are just not reasonable comparisons. The GSA chose the site that would cost the federal government the least amount of money and would develop the project the fastest. Major cost savings and major time savings are two of the priorities for the GSA when making real estate decisions and they used them to make this decision. Springfield is too expensive and too time-costly to develop a reasonable FBI HQ in a reasonable amount of time.

And that is what the IG and Congressional investigations are going to find.

The process was flawed. The allegations include GSA changing the criteria in the middle of the competition to get its desired result. GSA political appointees can try to spin all they want after-the-fact but there are career employees at GSA who will tell the IG and Congress all of the facts.

You can try to convince yourself of that all you want, but it isn't true and won't make a difference. The point is that the panel was never the deciding factor. The panel's recommendation is one of several sources that the GSA was using to research the issue. This is like buying a house. The inspection is one source or input on whether to buy the house, but just because the inspection says one thing, does not mean that the buyer is necessarily going to agree with the inspector for whether the house is right or not, the GSA administrator and Commissioner of Public Buildings did not necessarily have to follow the recommendation of the panel. That was never a stipulation. So whether the weighting of the factors that the panel used were kept or changed, was not a change in the process. It was always the case that the panel would research and make a recommendation and the Commissioner and agency Administrator would take that as one piece of input and make a decision based on that and other input. So the weighting of the criteria by the panel was not a critical determination of the value of the panel's recommendation.

Managers and executives frequently ask for input and studies and research from staff members. And even when the staff is 100% behind one choice or decision, it does not necessarily impact how the executive or manager will make their final decision. To assume that the panel of staffers decision was guaranteeing the end result you want makes it clear that you don't know how government agencies make decisions. Those of us who are career federal employments know full well that we can make recommendations all we want and very definitively, but administrators and political appointees will often make different decisions than we would have. It's part of working for the federal government with politically appointed agency heads and management.

I am not questioning the power that political appointees possess at agencies particularly GSA. A prior GSA administrator denied the results of the 2020 election and refused to provide the incoming administration with funding needed to transition government for an extended period of time. The career employees could do nothing, nothing at all.

Here, there are allegations of a severely flawed process by the nonpolitical Director of the FBI plus members of Congress from both major political parties. I will not repeat those allegations but you can find the details earlier on this thread if you are interested.

The question here is whether the politicos appropriately used their power and discretion. The answer will come down to how well they documented their decisions. Based on the allegations that have been made, the politicos were sloppy and a key decisionmaker did not even stick around long enough to be subject to oversight.

If the agency HQ in question was for the Dep't of Agriculture, no one would care. But GSA is going up against the FBI.

The FBI Director is a political appointee, meaning the POTUS who appointed the person picked that person because of their politics. Do you think Trump would've picked a liberal friendly FBI Director when he fired Comey?

Not only that, but the FBI director has no jurisdiction regarding real estate or the assignment of property for the federal government. This is like the FBI trying to tell the NSA that they did the foreign national signal intelligence (the jurisdiction of the NSA) wrong and they need to reconsider how their analysis of how to present that information to the White House.

Despite the fact that he is non-political, he has a very partisan, very biased perspective on the assignment of the HQ. He has very explicitly said on multiple occasions that he does not want the FBI to move out of the district and he is doing whatever he can to obstruct and delay the process of moving the FBI out of the district. He's not unbiased and he has no jurisdiction.