Comments on: Conflicting requirements put federal agency in a bind /news/2010/10/18/competing-requirements-has-federal-agency-at-loss-for-new-office-space/ Building and Construction News in Portland, Oregon and the Pacific Northwest Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:37:08 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.6 By: A Perspective /news/2010/10/18/competing-requirements-has-federal-agency-at-loss-for-new-office-space/#comment-42647 Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:53:19 +0000 /?p=60624#comment-42647 Something is just not making sense. Is the US Army Corps in need of a new building or is it that the lease is expiring? Surely there is a security concern difference between the FBI and the Corps. Isn’t there a difference too between leasing and new construction or leasing in a new construction? Do they in fact have to move?

A document ISC Security Standards in Leased Space seems at first glance to make the distinctions as to when the setback has to be implemented. It seems at odds with the article. See

Isn’t it more likely that the set back only applies in new construction whether leased or purchased?

Even for the government – it doesn’t make much sense to require that upon a lease expiration a new building has to be built. Just how many buildings have a 25 meter (not foot) setback that can be leased or purchased?

]]> By: villa rios /news/2010/10/18/competing-requirements-has-federal-agency-at-loss-for-new-office-space/#comment-42640 Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:13:11 +0000 /?p=60624#comment-42640 If the arrogant no-it-alls at every level of the federal government, would quit worry about supressing Americans and go after our enemies without pussy-footing around every hallway in Washington, there would be no need for these absolutely idiotic “competing” regulations.

It’s too bad there isn’t one simple new regulation: Everytime someone mentions we need new laws, rules, regulations, statues or legal review that the federal government had to fire 100 people.

]]>