5 ms·

GSA prepares to sell over 400 federal properties

102 points by throwaway5752 2y ago

throwaway5752 2y ago
"The General Services Administration announced Tuesday that it will begin selling off some of the federal government’s most recognizable office buildings, including the J. Edgar Hoover Building, which serves as the FBI headquarters in Washington, and the Robert F. Kennedy Building, home to the Department of Justice — a landmark shift in how the government manages its real estate portfolio." Selling the FBI and DOJ Headquarters. You can view the list yourself, https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/real-estate-services/real-property-disposition/noncore-property-list https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/real-estate-services/real-pr...
- sitkack 2y ago
  If you are in Seattle, the main federal building is listed. This contains the IRS and the offices of the representatives. https://archive.is/PpMp0 https://archive.is/PpMp0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson_Federal_Building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson_Federal_Build...
nxobject 2y ago
> GSA may not sell all of the offices. The agency said in its statement that it “welcomes creative solutions, including sale-lease backs, ground leases and other forms of public/private partnerships to drive the full optimization of our space.” Selling the property only to rent it back, eh? The properties under consideration for sale include agency headquarters (HHS, GSA, DOL, DOJ, FBI), and not to mention scientific facilities (FDA), and unless Musk and Trump intend to fully close those departments or to make these departments remote-first...
- fluidcruft 2y ago
  Back towards the end of his first term, Trump started moving a lot of agencies out of DC. I think BLM was headed to Colorado etc. IIRC there was also talk of moving FDA back then.
- ibejoeb 2y ago
  This type of arrangement isn't novel. Property is high and the space is underutilized. Sell high, lease the fraction that you need, and have the option to buy back at the end of the contract (often with the right of first refusal.) On your second point: it does look like there are going to be significantly fewer federal employees, so unless there are also going to be big relocation programs, most of these places are going to continue to be under capacity. It's not in anyone's interest to have these places locked up, especially in urban cores. edit: as usual, I'm curious what my error is here. Please explain. Thanks.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sitkack 2y ago
Pennies on the dollar. No conflict of interest on the part of the buyers.
- loire280 2y ago
  Unbelievable that they'll be selling the federal buildings in downtown Chicago in this property market. Very short-sighted to give up those prime locations in a fire sale.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    Some federal buildings considered for sale have a utilization rate of like 25%. How long should the government keep paying for the upkeep while badly using it?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - dataflow 2y ago
      Do you think the rent will be lower than whatever it's paying for upkeep? Why?
      - credit_guy 2y ago
        I don't think the parent is saying that. I think the idea is that if you have two buildings with utilization of less than 50%, you move people in one single building and sell the other one.
        tehjoker 2y ago
        50% utilization is good for preventing covid spread tho just saying
    - KennyBlanken 2y ago
      Given the raw # of government employees hasn't grown in ~40 years, plus we have the lowest # of government employees per capita...
jeffbee 2y ago
This is not "a shift in how the government manages its real estate." This is looting.
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  Actually, it's not a shift because the HSA has been offloading underutilized government buildings for 30+ years.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  The post-Soviet / early Russia oligarch playbook. The US really is losing the Cold War. It just lost async. Edit: it's also to destroy the institutions by making it harder to rehire and house people after the firings are done, as pointed out by someone else here.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dataflow 2y ago
I assume this is to let private corporations hold the government hostage in perpetuity and charge arbitrary amounts of money? Because the government would have no leverage in negotiating a lower rent? And if this prevents it from functioning, then even better?
- PaywallBuster 2y ago
  commercial real estate still recovering from post covid / work from home situation so federal government has plenty of negotiating power also with layoffs the space requirements may have changed and such large buildings may be excessive
  - Aurornis 2y ago
    > commercial real estate still recovering from post covid / work from home situation > so federal government has plenty of negotiating power You have this backward. The government is trying to sell. If real estate is still recovering (aka down) then they don't have much negotiating power. Buyer's market.
    - scrose 2y ago
      OPs point is funnily accurate if you’d like to consider a certain ‘real-estate’ person in government could stand to benefit from the buildings being sold at the lowest price (recovering market) and that same person people will likely be friends with the buyers (lots of negotiating power). They never mentioned whether it’d actually be beneficial for the government. Can’t wait for all of our federal agency buildings to be named after different members of the Trump family once they’ve changed hands! /s
      - egberts1 2y ago
        Ummmm, that's the taxpayers' money.
    - PaywallBuster 2y ago
      I mean negotiating power to acquire/lease new space as they'll likely relocating/downsizing :) keeping a lot of buildings cost a lot of money so even if they're sold at lower than expected prices saves money long term
nine_zeros 2y ago
The government is for sale - private equity style perpetual plunder.
rayiner 2y ago
If we can’t restore the constitutional apportionment of power between the federal and state governments—and it seems like that ship has sailed—the next best thing would be to decentralize the federal government and get as much of it out of DC as possible: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/moving-federal-agencies-washington https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/moving-fede...
- noobermin 2y ago
  Rayiner, this has nothing to do with that.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    If we are decentralizing operations, it would make sense to reduce GSA's office-space footprint in D.C., no?
    - sitkack 2y ago
      Then wtf are they listing the main federal building in Seattle and for many agencies in the NW. Please stop spraying your same opinion all over this discussion.
  - miltonlost 2y ago
    It's almost as if they're being willfully obtuse and acting in bad faith.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  Perhaps we could decentralize most offices and drop the cost of maintaining their buildings entirely. Maybe people could live where they work, work from home if you will.
rayiner 2y ago
GSA has been planning to sell office space since last year: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/facilities-construction/2024/07/gsa-doubles-down-on-shedding-federal-office-space-the-next-administration-may-alter-its-plans https://federalnewsnetwork.com/facilities-construction/2024/.... It’s office space in DC is significantly underutilized.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  Different list. The current administration has added far more properties to the list, including major headquarters buildings. It doesn't make sense to sell the HQs and make everyone RTO at the same time.
  - shawn_w 2y ago
    When you're also firing everyone who would have returned to those offices...
    - throwaway5752 2y ago
      It is a perfect plan when you are trying institutionally destroy oversight mechanisms. Fire the people and sell the buildings they worked in. Create maximal damage and work to restore oversight. It's actually quite brilliant, even though it is evil.
- throw0101a 2y ago
  From your link: > The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a policy blueprint crafted by former Trump administration officials, states that “COVID made telework ubiquitous, but the law and regulations are still stuck in an era when telework was unique.” And yet we have stories like "Federal workers ordered to return to offices without desks, Wi-Fi and lights": * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43253562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43253562 So at the same time we have the administration saying "RTO" and the admin's playbook people saying (in the past?) "we have RTO, why do we need space?".
justanasn 2y ago
Part of the corporate restructuring of the federal government under the chapter 11 bankruptcy. 28 U.S. Code § 3002 (15)(A)
IncreasePosts 2y ago
The FBI HQ had a lot of interesting accomodations due to the secure nature of the work there. Who could take it over and use those features? A defense contractor I guess?
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  That building specifically has been targeted as a tear-down for a long time. It's truly a shitty building and the FBI has been trying to relocate for years. If they succeed in selling it, it will get knocked down.
chasd00 2y ago
I looked up one of the ones in Dallas and have been inside it. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to buy the Dallas buildings, they should just be demolished.
snowwrestler 2y ago
> After an earlier version of this story published, the “non-core” properties was updated to exclude all Washington buildings and dozens in Maryland in Virginia that were previously included. The White House did not respond to a request for comment about why the changes were made. The initial list included a bunch of HQ buildings that made no sense to sell. For example the Department of Justice is always going to need a headquarters and it should always be within the District of Columbia to exclude state interference. And it's not like tons of DC commercial real estate companies are flush with capital to buy old federal buildings downtown right now.
yongjik 2y ago
Great, making sure that the US government will be on the hook for exorbitant rents, even long after Trump is gone. The party of "government can't do anything right, because I'll make it so" strikes again.
drweevil 2y ago
>“We can no longer assume that funding will materialize to fix these longstanding issues.” This is blatantly disingenuous. An administration that is doing pretty much as it pleases with hardly a check, with friendly majorities in both houses of Congress, claiming powerlessness? Please. And how is selling these facilities going to solve the problem? Do they really expect us to believe buyers will somehow fix these problems for free?

102 points by throwaway5752 2y ago

"The General Services Administration announced Tuesday that it will begin selling off some of the federal government’s most recognizable office buildings, including the J. Edgar Hoover Building, which serves as the FBI headquarters in Washington, and the Robert F. Kennedy Building, home to the Department of Justice — a landmark shift in how the government manages its real estate portfolio." Selling the FBI and DOJ Headquarters. You can view the list yourself, https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/real-estate-services/real-property-disposition/noncore-property-list https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/real-estate-services/real-pr...

sitkack 2y ago
If you are in Seattle, the main federal building is listed. This contains the IRS and the offices of the representatives. https://archive.is/PpMp0 https://archive.is/PpMp0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson_Federal_Building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson_Federal_Build...

nxobject 2y ago

> GSA may not sell all of the offices. The agency said in its statement that it “welcomes creative solutions, including sale-lease backs, ground leases and other forms of public/private partnerships to drive the full optimization of our space.” Selling the property only to rent it back, eh? The properties under consideration for sale include agency headquarters (HHS, GSA, DOL, DOJ, FBI), and not to mention scientific facilities (FDA), and unless Musk and Trump intend to fully close those departments or to make these departments remote-first...

fluidcruft 2y ago
Back towards the end of his first term, Trump started moving a lot of agencies out of DC. I think BLM was headed to Colorado etc. IIRC there was also talk of moving FDA back then.
ibejoeb 2y ago
This type of arrangement isn't novel. Property is high and the space is underutilized. Sell high, lease the fraction that you need, and have the option to buy back at the end of the contract (often with the right of first refusal.) On your second point: it does look like there are going to be significantly fewer federal employees, so unless there are also going to be big relocation programs, most of these places are going to continue to be under capacity. It's not in anyone's interest to have these places locked up, especially in urban cores. edit: as usual, I'm curious what my error is here. Please explain. Thanks.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sitkack 2y ago

Pennies on the dollar. No conflict of interest on the part of the buyers.

loire280 2y ago
Unbelievable that they'll be selling the federal buildings in downtown Chicago in this property market. Very short-sighted to give up those prime locations in a fire sale.
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  Some federal buildings considered for sale have a utilization rate of like 25%. How long should the government keep paying for the upkeep while badly using it?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dataflow 2y ago
    Do you think the rent will be lower than whatever it's paying for upkeep? Why?
    - credit_guy 2y ago
      I don't think the parent is saying that. I think the idea is that if you have two buildings with utilization of less than 50%, you move people in one single building and sell the other one.
      - tehjoker 2y ago
        50% utilization is good for preventing covid spread tho just saying
  - KennyBlanken 2y ago
    Given the raw # of government employees hasn't grown in ~40 years, plus we have the lowest # of government employees per capita...

jeffbee 2y ago

This is not "a shift in how the government manages its real estate." This is looting.

IncreasePosts 2y ago
Actually, it's not a shift because the HSA has been offloading underutilized government buildings for 30+ years.
actionfromafar 2y ago
The post-Soviet / early Russia oligarch playbook. The US really is losing the Cold War. It just lost async. Edit: it's also to destroy the institutions by making it harder to rehire and house people after the firings are done, as pointed out by someone else here.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dataflow 2y ago

I assume this is to let private corporations hold the government hostage in perpetuity and charge arbitrary amounts of money? Because the government would have no leverage in negotiating a lower rent? And if this prevents it from functioning, then even better?

PaywallBuster 2y ago
commercial real estate still recovering from post covid / work from home situation so federal government has plenty of negotiating power also with layoffs the space requirements may have changed and such large buildings may be excessive
- Aurornis 2y ago
  > commercial real estate still recovering from post covid / work from home situation > so federal government has plenty of negotiating power You have this backward. The government is trying to sell. If real estate is still recovering (aka down) then they don't have much negotiating power. Buyer's market.
  - scrose 2y ago
    OPs point is funnily accurate if you’d like to consider a certain ‘real-estate’ person in government could stand to benefit from the buildings being sold at the lowest price (recovering market) and that same person people will likely be friends with the buyers (lots of negotiating power). They never mentioned whether it’d actually be beneficial for the government. Can’t wait for all of our federal agency buildings to be named after different members of the Trump family once they’ve changed hands! /s
    - egberts1 2y ago
      Ummmm, that's the taxpayers' money.
  - PaywallBuster 2y ago
    I mean negotiating power to acquire/lease new space as they'll likely relocating/downsizing :) keeping a lot of buildings cost a lot of money so even if they're sold at lower than expected prices saves money long term

nine_zeros 2y ago

The government is for sale - private equity style perpetual plunder.

rayiner 2y ago

If we can’t restore the constitutional apportionment of power between the federal and state governments—and it seems like that ship has sailed—the next best thing would be to decentralize the federal government and get as much of it out of DC as possible: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/moving-federal-agencies-washington https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/moving-fede...

noobermin 2y ago
Rayiner, this has nothing to do with that.
- rayiner 2y ago
  If we are decentralizing operations, it would make sense to reduce GSA's office-space footprint in D.C., no?
  - sitkack 2y ago
    Then wtf are they listing the main federal building in Seattle and for many agencies in the NW. Please stop spraying your same opinion all over this discussion.
- miltonlost 2y ago
  It's almost as if they're being willfully obtuse and acting in bad faith.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Jtsummers 2y ago
Perhaps we could decentralize most offices and drop the cost of maintaining their buildings entirely. Maybe people could live where they work, work from home if you will.

rayiner 2y ago

GSA has been planning to sell office space since last year: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/facilities-construction/2024/07/gsa-doubles-down-on-shedding-federal-office-space-the-next-administration-may-alter-its-plans https://federalnewsnetwork.com/facilities-construction/2024/.... It’s office space in DC is significantly underutilized.

Aurornis 2y ago
Different list. The current administration has added far more properties to the list, including major headquarters buildings. It doesn't make sense to sell the HQs and make everyone RTO at the same time.
- shawn_w 2y ago
  When you're also firing everyone who would have returned to those offices...
  - throwaway5752 2y ago
    It is a perfect plan when you are trying institutionally destroy oversight mechanisms. Fire the people and sell the buildings they worked in. Create maximal damage and work to restore oversight. It's actually quite brilliant, even though it is evil.
throw0101a 2y ago
From your link: > The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a policy blueprint crafted by former Trump administration officials, states that “COVID made telework ubiquitous, but the law and regulations are still stuck in an era when telework was unique.” And yet we have stories like "Federal workers ordered to return to offices without desks, Wi-Fi and lights": * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43253562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43253562 So at the same time we have the administration saying "RTO" and the admin's playbook people saying (in the past?) "we have RTO, why do we need space?".

justanasn 2y ago

Part of the corporate restructuring of the federal government under the chapter 11 bankruptcy. 28 U.S. Code § 3002 (15)(A)

IncreasePosts 2y ago

The FBI HQ had a lot of interesting accomodations due to the secure nature of the work there. Who could take it over and use those features? A defense contractor I guess?

snowwrestler 2y ago
That building specifically has been targeted as a tear-down for a long time. It's truly a shitty building and the FBI has been trying to relocate for years. If they succeed in selling it, it will get knocked down.

chasd00 2y ago

I looked up one of the ones in Dallas and have been inside it. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to buy the Dallas buildings, they should just be demolished.

snowwrestler 2y ago

> After an earlier version of this story published, the “non-core” properties was updated to exclude all Washington buildings and dozens in Maryland in Virginia that were previously included. The White House did not respond to a request for comment about why the changes were made. The initial list included a bunch of HQ buildings that made no sense to sell. For example the Department of Justice is always going to need a headquarters and it should always be within the District of Columbia to exclude state interference. And it's not like tons of DC commercial real estate companies are flush with capital to buy old federal buildings downtown right now.

yongjik 2y ago

Great, making sure that the US government will be on the hook for exorbitant rents, even long after Trump is gone. The party of "government can't do anything right, because I'll make it so" strikes again.

drweevil 2y ago

>“We can no longer assume that funding will materialize to fix these longstanding issues.” This is blatantly disingenuous. An administration that is doing pretty much as it pleases with hardly a check, with friendly majorities in both houses of Congress, claiming powerlessness? Please. And how is selling these facilities going to solve the problem? Do they really expect us to believe buyers will somehow fix these problems for free?