Why Trump’s Shift in Federal Building Locations Puts Agencies Closer to the People

Urban areas and historic sites may no longer be first on the agenda for federal building locations, as President Trump recently modified some long-standing guidelines. His new executive order replaces previous rules that had urged federal agencies to think about economic development and social impact when deciding where to place offices and other facilities.

Trump’s order aims to make federal operations more efficient and cost-effective. By getting rid of older guidelines, he believes agencies can have more freedom to choose locations based on practicality rather than strict socioeconomic goals. Dan Mathews, a former Public Buildings Service commissioner, shared his perspective on this change: “This adjustment will give agencies more options to find the most cost-effective places to work.”

The General Services Administration (GSA), which manages federal properties, will now revise regulations stemming from previous administrations. Notably, guidelines from Presidents Carter and Clinton emphasized placing buildings in urban areas to bolster growth and preserve historic properties. For example, in Washington, D.C., buildings such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s headquarters moved to the NoMa neighborhood, leading to significant development in the area.

Norman Dong, who also held a high position at GSA, pointed out that Carter’s guidelines served as a framework but weren’t absolute. He noted that various factors, including costs and security, must be considered when agencies choose locations. For instance, FBI field offices often operate outside city centers due to the specific needs for security and functionality.

Over the years, the application of these urban center policies has been inconsistent. Sometimes they were heavily weighted, while in other cases, they were simply one of many factors in decisions. Dong emphasized the need for balance in considering costs and mission-related needs.

In the wake of this new order, agencies are likely to pursue relocations more aggressively. Earlier this year, the White House asked agencies to submit relocation plans to save costs, aiming for more efficient property management. Some departments, like Housing and Urban Development, have started moves away from urban headquarters with uncertain new locations.

Further reducing expenses appears to be a focal point. The GSA plans to cancel numerous leases and continue reducing federal real estate holdings, targeting a goal of 80% utilization for federal buildings.

However, there are concerns about the implications of these changes. In past relocations, such as when the Department of Agriculture moved offices to Missouri, high staff turnover raised questions about effectiveness. Research showed that relocating drastically reduced the workforce’s diversity and experience.

To address these issues, some lawmakers proposed the “COST of Relocations Act,” which seeks to ensure that agencies conduct thorough cost-benefit analyses before making significant changes. With these planned changes, it’s crucial to ensure that efficiency doesn’t come at the cost of essential services.

As these relocations unfold, they’ll likely draw attention from citizens and stakeholders alike, sparking discussions on how best to balance cost-saving measures with the need for accessible and effective federal services.



Source link

agency relocation,agriculture department,chris van hollen,dan mathews,department of government efficiency,department of housing and urban development,donald trump,economic research service,federal real estate,general services administration,government accountability office,national institute of food and agriculture,norman dong,public buildings reform board,public buildings service