Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)
-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.
-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.
-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.
-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.
-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.
-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.
This is disengenious. They're talking relocating the actual agency headquarters to the communities outside Kansas City in either Kansas or Missouri.
You know how much land per a square mile in those areas are? It's $600,000 per an ACRE right on top of the airport.
https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/8800-NW-112th-St-Kansas-City-MO/15777214/
Contrast that to near Dulles or Reagan - It's $1,000,000 per an acre all the way out in Manassas.
https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/9701-Hornbaker-Rd-Manassas-VA/13869341/
The USDA could build out an entire new headquarters facilities, including lower operational and building costs, for less than 1/2th the cost it'd take to do so in the DMV.