The Oct. 18 editorial, “No wonder the government can’t off-load this building. Look inside,” about the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building struck a nerve.
To provide some perspective, billions of dollars are spent annually to operate and maintain outdated and largely unoccupied federal buildings. Congress recognized this when it passed the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016, establishing the bipartisan Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB) to identify opportunities for reducing and consolidating the federal real property inventory.
To date, PBRB has recommended 38 properties for disposal, potentially saving U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars in operations and maintenance costs while enabling federal employees to work in safer modernized workspaces and returning underused properties to the local tax base. These recommendations are then used by the General Services Administration and other federal agencies to consolidate and improve the federal real estate portfolio’s performance and reduce the estimated $52 billion in deferred maintenance liabilities.
With that in mind, PBRB applauds the GSA’s recent sales of the Liberty Loan Building and its own regional office building and believes the Weaver building and other federal parcels in the Southwest Federal Center present an opportunity for redevelopment. It takes time to make that happen — these transactions are complex, and there is a need to avoid flooding the market. But the GSA’s current focus and efforts such as PBRB’s partnership with the National Capital Planning Commission and the Urban Land Institute are unlocking redevelopment opportunities along the 10th Street corridor that ultimately will transform Southwest D.C.
David L. Winstead, Chevy Chase
The writer, a member of the Public Buildings Reform Board, is a former commissioner of the Public Buildings Service at the GSA.
The Oct. 18 editorial offered the Weaver building as an example of the financial, logistical and political headaches involved in trying to make efficient use of federally owned real estate.
Another prime example is the Trump administration’s attempt to relocate the FBI headquarters from the crumbling, decrepit J. Edgar Hoover Building to the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) and Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown (D) sued to force the FBI to move to Greenbelt (previously chosen by the GSA after much fighting between Maryland and Virginia), and a judge subsequently halted the move to the Reagan building. Talk about political headaches.
On Aug. 19, The Post reported that the GSA “characterized the move as an efficient way to avoid $300 million in delayed maintenance costs to the Hoover building and ‘billions’ in constructing a new campus in Greenbelt.”
Brown said in a statement that this is “about more than a building,” and he thinks that Marylanders “deserve” the economic benefits. Prince George’s County Executive Aisha N. Braveboy told The Post, “This is really about equity.” Shouldn’t it be about the efficient use of taxpayer money?
Joseph A. Capone, Oakton
I see how SNAP cuts hurt families
Leana S. Wen’s Oct. 14 column, “How SNAP soda reform is improving health,” argued that the Trump administration deserves credit for letting states restrict what people can buy with their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, particularly soda. I am the founder of Stock the Block, which is a student-run program that recovers surplus school cafeteria food to supply food banks and community fridges across New York City. I’ve seen firsthand how the SNAP cuts have devastated families. Within hours of a food drop-off, across every single one of our receiving sites, the fridges are empty.
Wen says that roughly 5 million people, more than 1 million of whom are children, have been disenrolled from SNAP since the Trump administration’s changes took effect. It’s clear that the problem with SNAP isn’t that people are eating unhealthy food; it’s that many people aren’t eating enough food — especially when you consider that the average benefit comes out to about $6 a day, according to an estimate from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The SNAP restrictions aren’t entirely useless. As Wen says, a study found that SNAP households in the first 10 states to adopt the restrictions bought about 12 percent fewer sugary drinks. But the same study also found that the restrictions made recipients feel more stigmatized for being on SNAP. Trading soda for shame at the register isn’t an effective health policy.
The Trump administration should restore SNAP benefits rather than police what people drink.
Saif Iftikhar, New York
Reducing purchases of certain foods and beverages is not the same as improving public health. The studies Wen cites show reductions in purchases of certain sugary beverages, but that does not necessarily establish that Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients are making healthier choices overall.
That is the fundamental problem with government-mandated food restrictions. SNAP recipients don’t make food choices in isolation. Effective nutrition policy should reflect how Americans actually eat. Different foods serve different purposes within a healthy diet. Some are everyday staples, while others are occasional treats. How much and how often people consume them matters, and more Americans now than ever before understand the role of moderation in a balanced lifestyle.
When provided with the right products, tools and information, consumers can be trusted to establish healthy eating patterns. Rather than restrict consumer choice, policymakers should inform, educate and inspire Americans to make nutritious food choices and build healthy habits.
Ultimately, the measure of success for policy ideas like SNAP restrictions should not be what foods the government prevents people from buying; it should be whether those policies actually make Americans healthier. By that standard, SNAP restrictions fail the test.
Sean McBride, Fairfax
The writer is a former executive vice president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, now called Consumer Brands Association.
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
The post Selling these buildings will transform Southwest D.C. appeared first on Washington Post.
