Restoring Common Sense to Federal Office Space Management

TLDR

This executive order revokes previous requirements that federal agencies prioritize locating offices in central business districts and historic properties in urban centers. It aims to give agencies more flexibility in selecting office locations to reduce costs and improve service delivery, directing the GSA to update regulations accordingly. Critics argue it may lead to urban disinvestment, lacks substantiated cost-benefit analysis, and could have political motivations including potentially favoring non-urban real estate interests or making regulatory oversight more difficult.

This executive order revokes two previous orders that directed federal agencies to prioritize locating offices in central business districts (EO 12072 from 1978) and historic properties in central cities (EO 13006 from 1996). The stated purpose is to allow agencies more flexibility in selecting office locations to reduce costs and improve service delivery. The order directs the Administrator of General Services to update regulations accordingly and requires agencies to conform to this new approach when acquiring or utilizing federal space.

The order presents itself as a measure to enhance cost-effectiveness in government operations by revoking prior requirements for federal facilities to be located in central business districts. However, it fails to substantiate claims that such locations have contributed to higher costs or inefficiencies. Instead, it removes longstanding guidance without proposing new criteria, risking a patchwork of inconsistent decision-making across agencies. Although cost savings are highlighted as a justification, the order does not require agencies to rigorously demonstrate financial or service delivery benefits that might arise from relocating, especially when considering potential hidden costs.

These relocations could lead to a notable shift of federal offices away from urban centers, a move that may intensify economic disinvestment in cities that have developed infrastructure and services around the presence of federal agencies. Moreover, the elimination of protections for historic properties raises preservation concerns, directly contradicting the order’s claim of restoring “common sense” governance. The order also overlooks the practical consequences for federal employees, many of whom have based their housing and commuting arrangements on current office locations.

This executive order appears relatively straightforward on the surface - it revokes requirements for federal agencies to prioritize urban central business districts for office locations. However, there are several possible underlying motivations that aren’t explicitly stated in the text:

• The order could benefit specific property developers or real estate interests looking to secure federal leases in non-urban locations.
• By potentially forcing relocations, the administration might be creating conditions where some career federal employees choose to resign rather than relocate, allowing for replacement with appointees more aligned with the current administration.
• Moving certain regulatory agencies away from industry centers could make oversight and enforcement more difficult.
• Relocating agencies provides opportunities to reduce office space or workforce under the guise of cost-cutting.

Additionally, the timing and scope of the order raise concerns about possible political motivations, particularly its potential to disproportionately reduce federal footprints in traditionally Democratic-leaning urban areas. This could have implications far beyond fiscal considerations, possibly reflecting an effort to reconfigure the federal government’s geographical influence. Compounding these issues are likely legal and financial challenges, such as early termination costs associated with existing long-term leases, which could nullify any projected savings.