| Page 2 of 2 < |
Defense Jobs in N.Va. At Risk
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
"The Department of Defense does not have an interest in going back into Fort Apache. But we do have an interest in protecting our people," said Ralph E. Newton, who heads the branch of the Pentagon that manages its leased space in the capital region.
Several real estate analysts cautioned that lack of funding might limit how quickly the Pentagon can move to more secure buildings and that it is likely to apply the new standards to its most sensitive facilities first.
They also said the relocations might not seriously hurt the region as a whole, as inner jurisdictions' losses would be offset by outer suburbs' gains.
For instance, the Fort Belvoir Engineering Proving Ground, a former military airfield in southeastern Fairfax County, has been touted by developers as a site that could accommodate up to 20 million square feet of office space, although it has environmental and traffic problems.
Newton said it is unlikely that all 50,000 defense workers in leased space would be moved outside the region.
"I think until we test the standards and see what the market will bear, it is impossible for us determine what the impact will be," he said.
But Washington area planners and real estate experts say the new Defense Department rules are part of a wider trend toward fortification of government offices that has forced them to alter their thinking.
Intense demand for homeland security and military-related office space has caused rents to soar near the National Security Agency at Fort Meade and the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Southern Maryland, each at least 20 miles from Washington, for example.
Robert M. Pinkard, chief executive of Cassidy & Pinkard, the area's largest locally owned commercial real estate firm, said he has never before seen a time when the private lease market is so driven by the federal government's decisions on location.
Closer to the capital, Arlington planners are discussing whether to seal off street traffic around individual building, or perhaps even several blocks of Crystal City or Ballston, to try to keep their defense jobs, although that could run counter to the county's history of "urban village" planning.
In Southeast Washington, District leaders are revising plans to redevelop 300 acres around St. Elizabeths Hospital into a residential and commercial center, now that the U.S. government wants to use its portion of the property for a secure compound for federal agencies.
In Prince George's County, planners are worried that their dream of redeveloping a "town center" across from the 226-acre Suitland Federal Center will be limited because federal agencies have retreated behind fences and buffer zones, said Teri Bond, project manager with the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
"We have had a sea change . . . in the way security is perceived for federal employees and people within federal buildings, and I don't believe it will ever go back to the way it was before," said Joseph D. Delogu, principal and partner with Spalding & Slye Colliers, a real estate firm that helped the Transportation Security Administration choose its new headquarters.
At the same time, some anti-terrorism specialists have criticized the federal government for not adopting uniform standards. For non-defense agencies, the Department of Homeland Security and the General Services Administration finalized less restrictive rules in February. They require setbacks of 20 to 100 feet for new buildings only, and they allow exceptions if an agency can reach an overall level of security "performance."
Some agencies, such as the Justice and State departments, have stronger requirements.
"We don't want to say if you don't have 19 1/2 feet of setback you're out of consideration," said Wade D. Belcher, who chaired the working group that produced the standards and is with the Office of the Chief Architect at GSA.
"We will not be bullied by domestic or international persons who want to do harm or disrupt the government. And if we abandon an area, it can be perceived that the potential adversaries have won."
Staff writer Dana Hedgpeth contributed to this report.


![[The Presidential Field]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/09/17/GR2007091700670.gif)




