FBI HQ in PG!

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Yet another Virginian who has never visited the area, but slings outdated lies at PG County to hide their racist bias against "those people"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

Congress, who has power to appropriate fund for whichever location they choose gets a say. When the FBI director says the process was flawed and the HQ should be in a purple state not a blue state, good luck

[Anonymous]

Look on the bright side. If their HQ is in PG County, the FBI won’t have to go far to interdict crime.

[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:

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.

Congress, who has power to appropriate fund for whichever location they choose gets a say. When the FBI director says the process was flawed and the HQ should be in a purple state not a blue state, good luck

I don’t really see Congress showing a big interest in this kind of conflict, there’s not really national interest and they are barely functional.

[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:

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.

I agree. The one place where people would care about this is DC and this thread has clearly died down after the Greenbelt announcement.

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.

Congress, who has power to appropriate fund for whichever location they choose gets a say. When the FBI director says the process was flawed and the HQ should be in a purple state not a blue state, good luck

I don’t really see Congress showing a big interest in this kind of conflict, there’s not really national interest and they are barely functional.

[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:

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.

Congress, who has power to appropriate fund for whichever location they choose gets a say. When the FBI director says the process was flawed and the HQ should be in a purple state not a blue state, good luck

I don’t really see Congress showing a big interest in this kind of conflict, there’s not really national interest and they are barely functional.

I agree. The one place where people would care about this is DC and this thread has clearly died down after the Greenbelt announcement.

[Anonymous]

Makes no sense but I'm glad the traffic is going there and not close to where I live. MD can have it.

[Anonymous]

Great for keeping Maryland the richest state. Good move donating the land and having DC embedded in the state and owning the Potomac river. Hope the Redskins stay in Md or Dc too. It’s nice having 2 nfl teams 2 mlb teams mls, NBA and nhl all on the Md side.

[Anonymous]

I hear the new FBI building is bigger than the Pentagon. Is this true?

[Anonymous]

I was down by the old FBI building the other day. It's cool looking. Pity it can't be preserved.

[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:

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.

I agree. The one place where people would care about this is DC and this thread has clearly died down after the Greenbelt announcement.

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.

Congress, who has power to appropriate fund for whichever location they choose gets a say. When the FBI director says the process was flawed and the HQ should be in a purple state not a blue state, good luck

I don’t really see Congress showing a big interest in this kind of conflict, there’s not really national interest and they are barely functional.

Incorrect. There is bipartisan consensus about the need for a robust investigation as reflected in this letter:

“GSA initially set out criteria for assessing potential sites, and a process for selecting among them. But it changed the rules in the middle of the game. The criteria were changed. The selection process itself was changed. Most disturbingly, a new umpire — a political appointee — was inserted in the final inning. That individual, Nina Albert, the Commissioner of the Public Building Service at GSA, overturned the consensus site decision of an expert panel of civil servants representing GSA and its agency client, the FBI,” continued the lawmakers.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-connolly-request-gsa-ig-investigate-fbi-headquarters-site-selection-process%EF%BF%BC/

[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:

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.

I agree. The one place where people would care about this is DC and this thread has clearly died down after the Greenbelt announcement.

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.

Congress, who has power to appropriate fund for whichever location they choose gets a say. When the FBI director says the process was flawed and the HQ should be in a purple state not a blue state, good luck

I don’t really see Congress showing a big interest in this kind of conflict, there’s not really national interest and they are barely functional.

Incorrect. There is bipartisan consensus about the need for a robust investigation as reflected in this letter:

“GSA initially set out criteria for assessing potential sites, and a process for selecting among them. But it changed the rules in the middle of the game. The criteria were changed. The selection process itself was changed. Most disturbingly, a new umpire — a political appointee — was inserted in the final inning. That individual, Nina Albert, the Commissioner of the Public Building Service at GSA, overturned the consensus site decision of an expert panel of civil servants representing GSA and its agency client, the FBI,” continued the lawmakers.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-connolly-request-gsa-ig-investigate-fbi-headquarters-site-selection-process%EF%BF%BC/

If the investigation substantiates the specific concerns outlined in the letter from Reps Comer and Connolly, there will need to be a do-over in the site selection process at the very least. It is possible next time that GSA will be able to set ground rules from the very beginning to favor Greenbelt, but the agency does not get to change the rules in the middle of the game when it realizes its favored team is losing. This should not be controversial.

The GSA Acting IG is a serious individual with a great deal of experience. He can be expected to do his job and follow the facts wherever they may lead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was down by the old FBI building the other day. It's cool looking. Pity it can't be preserved.

I agree with this. It's iconic.

There's so much empty office space downtown. Can't the FBI take some of it temporarily while the building is renovated and expanded as needed?

That would be expensive - but very practical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was down by the old FBI building the other day. It's cool looking. Pity it can't be preserved.

I agree with this. It's iconic.

There's so much empty office space downtown. Can't the FBI take some of it temporarily while the building is renovated and expanded as needed?

That would be expensive - but very practical.

The FBI already has temporary office space all over the area. The point of the new HQ is to consolidate everyone.

[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

It seems like the FBI would have a lot to clean up in Springfield, much more so than Greenbelt. But hey, if the FBI wants to be closer to meth heads and horrible traffic, they can go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It seems like the FBI would have a lot to clean up in Springfield, much more so than Greenbelt. But hey, if the FBI wants to be closer to meth heads and horrible traffic, they can go for it.

That was one pervert in the Fairfax mayor’s office. Crime seems more pervasive in PG, including in county government where pay to play corruption goes back decades.