It should be noted that NVCC has been on record in support of extending the streetcar line through campus, as well as extending it down Alexandria's Corridor C (Beauregard/Van Dorn).

by Froggie on Nov 21, 2011 9:05 am • link • report

I'm fine with FBI in DC in principle, but if they have to occupy a brutalist fortress with no ground level street-facing activity other than double-parking squad cars, then they probably need a secluded wooded lot like the CIA in Langley.

Would be interesting to see a design competition for re-using the FBI headquarters and re-configuring the ground floor, without demolishing the building. It's an example of architecture so uniquely ugly that it needs to be preserved as an example of this horrific style. Perhaps a new Museum of Bad Architecture. Or maybe they could move the Spy Museum there or the Crime/Punishment museum.

by Ward 1 Guy on Nov 21, 2011 9:14 am • link • report

You really have to think the impact of the Beltway sniper has driven a large part of the tag readers here in DC.

Sigh. The answer is the saame as the FBI building. Don't move it -- shut down the FBI. Shut down the tag readers. Shut down the TSA. And stop giving police riot gear.

by charlie on Nov 21, 2011 9:15 am • link • report

Extra passenger fees are the worst public policy. You want to encourage cab sharing, not discourage it. The extra passenger fee should reflect the marginal cost of adding a passenger, which is essentially zero.

by Ward 1 Guy on Nov 21, 2011 9:17 am • link • report

License plate readers (different from traffic cameras) are popping up all over, and help police solve crimes, but they also bring privacy concerns about constant surveillance of the public.

I don't get this. You're in public space, and driving on public roads is a privilege not a right. When you sign up for a driver's license, and register your vehicle, you're implicitly agreeing to diminished "privacy".

For what it's worth, I think that police should pull everyone out there with one of those "license plate obfuscators" over and ticket them as a matter of course.

This whole "right to be free from being identified while driving a car on public roadways" is utterly ridiculous.

by oboe on Nov 21, 2011 9:22 am • link • report

Ha. I just read the linked editorial on the FBI building and realized we both (me and the WaPo editorial writer) used the terms brutalist fortress and mentioned the CIA building independently. It's just that obvious what a nightmare that building is.

by Ward 1 Guy on Nov 21, 2011 9:24 am • link • report

1. Im still not sure why St E's isnt a candidate for a new FBI building - does DHS take up so much space there that there isnt any room? Not many suburban metro stations that would be good sites for a necessarily antiurbanist building.

2. Re NVCC - someday the LRT will likely be extended down beauregard anyway, even if BRT is used as a short term solution. So taking it as far as NVCC would be a good thing (and presumably riders from South Arlington to NVCC would help to balance ridership)

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 21, 2011 9:38 am • link • report

@Awalkerinthecity,

Despite all the hubbub about consolidating DHS, their new facility will "only" hold 14K employees, about half of what they have in the DC Metro. In the end, St E's isn't even big enough for DHS

http://dcmud.blogspot.com/2010/03/st-elizabeths-too-small-feds-seek-more.html

by freely on Nov 21, 2011 9:48 am • link • report

Wholly disagree with putting the FBI building at a place that is more appropriate for proper TOD. AWalkerInTheCity makes a good point - this would have been a good choice for St. E's as well.

by Geoffrey Hatchard on Nov 21, 2011 9:56 am • link • report

@oboe,
This whole "right to be free from being identified while driving a car on public roadways" is utterly ridiculous.

Well it is a slippery slope. The technology exists today to do essentially the same thing with facial recognition. Do we have a right not to have our movements monitored and tracked 24/7 by the authorities without a court order?

P.S. - ordering my Guy Fawkes mask today!

by JeffB on Nov 21, 2011 9:59 am • link • report

Putting it at the old Walter Reed campus would work, and would probably improve the neighborhood as well.

by Dave J on Nov 21, 2011 9:59 am • link • report

Jeff - you seem unclear on the concept of going out in public. There is no implied privacy in the public space, in fact it is contrary to the entire meaning of the word.

by Dave J on Nov 21, 2011 10:00 am • link • report

I liken the debate about the FBI building to the one about a new football stadium or practice (Practice!?) facility. If they can't be incorporated into an urban design, they shouldn't be in an urban area. And a walk past either RFK, Fedex or the FBI building on any given weekend will tell you that they're all not fit for the city.

Put it on a military base and allow it to fortify itself to the max. Btw - any room in or around Andrews AFB? If they were to relocate to around the Southside of that base, could they run the Green Line down around there?

by Shipsa01 on Nov 21, 2011 10:01 am • link • report

Well, the FBI building at least has a lot more 5 day a week employees than a football facility. But for our scarce metro stations in NoVa, I want to see dense AND good TOD design. Maybe at one of PG's less well situated stations?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 21, 2011 10:07 am • link • report

@Shipsa01:

Hrmm...army base? Fort Belvoir has some large tracts of scrub land that have yet to be viably developed...

(Yes, I know there's no Metro access as yet. But come on...a fellow can dream, can't he?)

More seriously - if the transit question can be solved, this might be an opportunity for Fort Belvoir. I think there are some large tracts of land on the fort which could use some severe tarting up. (What? I always think outside the box.)

Incidentally, I'm probably going to destroy all of my credibility here, but I actually kind of like the FBI building. I have no idea why...I hate Brutalism, as a rule. Perhaps it's because it's a building with character?

by Ser Amantio di Nicolao on Nov 21, 2011 10:13 am • link • report

The definite "sense of the blog" definitely comes down on the side of the rights of individual photographers exercising their freedom to photograph in public spaces. It's definitely a right that needs more public awareness and vigorous defense.

Nothing really changes when it's the government, and not individual photographers, who are taking the photographs. If you're out in public, your picture may be taken. The right to take photographs is the real right at issue here.

by thm on Nov 21, 2011 10:16 am • link • report

This whole "right to be free from being identified while driving a car on public roadways" is utterly ridiculous.

Oboe, I think you're right in principle but are communicating it in a way that's hard to agree with. This is about increasing our rights and freedoms, not decreasing them. Any person, institution, or agency should be free to take whatever pictures they want to in public spaces. Whether that's photographing government buildings downtown, photographing cars, or photographing people -- you should be free to do all of that.

Re: FBI

In addition to Congress Heights, New Carrollton or the new Potomac Yard metro stop would be good locations for the FBI. Th Potomac Yard stop is similarly situated to the CIA building in that there are natural barriers created by the river and highway/railroad tracks that increase security.

Re: Gray

Right, the main problem with the Gray admin is the lack of spin. Why focus on a fundamental re-structure when you can try to spin your way out of a terrible track record.

by Falls Church on Nov 21, 2011 10:17 am • link • report

"License plate readers" -- Oh yes, yet another infantile use of taxpayers funds. how about doing some real crime work, or policing intersections that drivers abuse regularly, or enforce drugs laws (so we might put a dent in the Civil War going on in Mexico)or better yet...get police out of their cars and walk the beats...get to know the neighborhoods, the people...too much technology and too little humanity.

by Pelham1861 on Nov 21, 2011 10:22 am • link • report

Move the FBI to the RFK site and call it La Defense.

by Kevin C on Nov 21, 2011 10:24 am • link • report

Falls Church,

River and highway/railroad are usually considered security risks. Significant setback requirements are usually required for streets and railroads. And most of the area around Potomac Yards is spoken for and underdevelopment.

by RJ on Nov 21, 2011 10:24 am • link • report

@oboe,
This whole "right to be free from being identified while driving a car on public roadways" is utterly ridiculous

---------------

The same logic could be used to justify the forfeiture of orivacy rights for walking or biking on a public street. You might have the so-called right to walk or ride wherever you please, but where's the guarantee of privacy?

Be careful what you wish for.

by ceefer66 on Nov 21, 2011 10:38 am • link • report

@Falls, as freely has already pointed out, even the proposed St. E/DHS headquarters won't house ALL of DHS. I can't imagine how the FBI would fit into the space. But as a resident of the area, I'm interested to see how this all builds out. It won't answer the Ward 8 job problem. That much is for sure.

by HogWash on Nov 21, 2011 10:50 am • link • report

The issue isn't what the goverment is being allowed. The goverment, right now, is allowed to trail you, track you via GPS, intercept your email, hack your facebook page, strip search you, and possible kill you with a hellfire missile.

None of these are necessary. People get consitutional procetions. Goverments get limited by their citizens, and I don't recall voting on these licence tag readers.

by charlie on Nov 21, 2011 10:51 am • link • report

as freely has already pointed out, even the proposed St. E/DHS headquarters won't house ALL of DHS.

Right, but isn't there any additional land near Congress Heights (but not at St. E's) where FBI could build a new building? Last I checked, Congress Heights seemed pretty underdeveloped.

People get consitutional procetions. Goverments get limited by their citizens, and I don't recall voting on these licence tag readers.

What's the contitutional protection that gives people the right of privacy in public spaces? Here's a brief history on the right of privacy:

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

The renowned tort expert Dean Prosser argued that "privacy" was composed of four separate torts, the only unifying element of which was a (vague) "right to be left alone." These elements were

appropriating the plaintiff's identity for the defendant's benefit

placing the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye

publicly disclosing private facts about the plaintiff

unreasonably intruding upon the seclusion or solitude of the plaintiff

by Falls Church on Nov 21, 2011 11:06 am • link • report

not at potomac yards, please. That should be a place for excellent TOD,not for a fortress.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 21, 2011 11:19 am • link • report

Do we have a right not to have our movements monitored and tracked 24/7 by the authorities without a court order?

No, you don't. Law enforcement can do that right now, without a warrant. And they've always been able to do it - the cops can tail you without your knowledge if they want to. It takes a huge amount of resources, so it doesn't happen often. But technology makes it easier and more cost effective. It's worth debating whether we need additional protections to keep up with technology - but as written, there are few, if any privacy protections regarding where you go in public.

by dcd on Nov 21, 2011 11:28 am • link • report

I thought FBI HQ was supposed to move to Greenbelt.

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/5688/breakfast-links-green-and-moving/

Slightly off topic, I've never understood the Tea Party's reluctance to speed and redlight camaras. What part of "illegal" don't they understand? I say build a fence to keep the speeders and redlight runners out of our roads.

by Steven Harrell on Nov 21, 2011 11:56 am • link • report

@FChurchRight, but isn't there any additional land near Congress Heights (but not at St. E's) where FBI could build a new building? Last I checked, Congress Heights seemed pretty underdeveloped

Congress Heights is mainly residential with a few parks and commercial establishments sprinkled about. Do you have a link to the underdeveloped area that you believe could work? St. E is a pretty big plot of land. Between the new Coast Guard and DHS, I'm not sure where you could fit an FBI building. There's also a lot of wooded areas in that part of Ward 8. Not sure if its NPS owned or not. The main commercial district is on MLK which happens to be w/in the same area being outfitted for streetcars..which is also pretty much near St. E's.

by HogWash on Nov 21, 2011 12:04 pm • link • report

The FBI proposal is laughable--a campus near transit? Pretty unlikely.

by Rich on Nov 21, 2011 12:12 pm • link • report

1) Does the FBI really *need* an ultra-secure bunker to house the majority of its staff (and do they need to all be in one location)?

2) Putting it at Ft. Belvior, though logistically convenient, would be sending a very wrong message.

Greenbelt isn't a bad idea. The area around the station is surprisingly undeveloped. Still, it would be a shitty commute for everyone who had to work there.

by andrew on Nov 21, 2011 12:32 pm • link • report

Put it EOTR. Plenty of spots, and the locals would benefit from having extra cops roving around

by TGEOA on Nov 21, 2011 12:35 pm • link • report

@StephenHarrell
I've never understood the Tea Party's reluctance to speed and redlight camaras.
Many people who identify with the Tea Party protests are suspicious that expansive government power/authority will be abused. Right or wrong, numerous anecdotes -- and some formal studies -- have suggested that speed cameras are often poorly calibrated, issuing tickets erroneously. Similarly, when red light cameras were first deployed (less so now), many people had the experience of receiving a citation for making a (lawful) right turn on red.

When coupled with the lack of opportunity to discuss the violation with a law enforcement officer at the time of violation and the procedural obstacles many jurisdictions impose to challenging these tickets, I don't find it surprising that those suspicious of government power are also suspicious of traffic cameras.

by Arl Anon on Nov 21, 2011 1:03 pm • link • report

+1 on the EOTR. The added law enforcement presence would be good as well as the likely increase in the number of new, well-paid employees to the area.

by Nicoli on Nov 21, 2011 1:07 pm • link • report

@Hogwash

I don't know which underdeveloped lots could work for FBI, just that there's room for development in CH. I've heard from some blogs that Congress Heights is On The Rise. Would anything along MLK (near Subway Sandwich) or Alabama work (near Subway Sandwich)?

by Falls Church on Nov 21, 2011 1:08 pm • link • report

If transit accessibility is key to a new FBI headquarters, there are only two options for an EOTR location, 1)somewhere near Anacostia 2)Near Congress Heights).

There is already development planned for the Anacostia area and unless they plan to move to Poplar Point, I'm not sure what other undeveloped land would work since the Anacostia Historic district is out of the question.

The areas to the immediate North, East, South and West of St. E is largely residential so unless you decide to go the eminent domain route, razing homes doesn't seem like the best fit.

@FallsChurch, lol, well Congress Heights on the Rise is a blog you know? :) Re: your question. There are storefronts on MLK that should be torn down and I believe TheAdvocate has indeed advocated such. But I imagine that most of that development will happen anyway since it is in very close proximity to St. E.

The Subway Sandwich on Alabama would likely not work as well. The shop sits w/in a shopping center (Camp Simms) where housing a couple of banks, nail salon, Giant, IHOP, Turner Library and such. What you have in the areas immediately outside it are fully detached, single-family homes w/garages (south), a huuuugge WCSMith apt community (east), townhomes (north) and more apts and homes to the west. There isn't much "developable" land there.

Oh, can't forget about the Huuuuuge cemetary located a stones throw from Cheights station.

by HogWash on Nov 21, 2011 1:47 pm • link • report

When coupled with the lack of opportunity to discuss the violation with a law enforcement officer at the time of violation and the procedural obstacles many jurisdictions impose to challenging these tickets, I don't find it surprising that those suspicious of government power are also suspicious of traffic cameras.

Given that almost every Teabagger is also an older middle- to upper-middle-class white person, I think the "ability to talk to an officer" is vastly understated as a reason. You can't talk a traffic camera out of a ticket by appealing to racial/class solidarity.

by oboe on Nov 21, 2011 3:12 pm • link • report

"Given that almost every Teabagger is also an older middle- to upper-middle-class white person, I think the "ability to talk to an officer" is vastly understated as a reason. You can't talk a traffic camera out of a ticket by appealing to racial/class solidarity."

Maybe its different in DC, but here in Fairfax many officers of the law are african american, and usually they are younger.

I suspect Tea baggers are concerned about the privacy liberty implications of traffic cameras as many others are. The anomaly is not that, its their lack of concern with limits on privacy, liberty etc that spefically impact the undocumented. Thats easily explained by the fact that they are not undocumented.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 21, 2011 3:37 pm • link • report

FBI

If the FBI should be relocated it should be moved to somewhere like East Potomac Park or Ft McNair due having only one way in or out.

Anyone going there would have a specific reason for being there. If we were truly security minded, everything beyond the Capitol and White House would be on East Potomac Park, Bolling AFB, Kingman Island or buy all land around CIA and move there or some other place that is not easily accessible.

by kk on Nov 26, 2011 10:22 am • link • report