Pelosi's new office is House's costliest by far

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(06-15) 04:00 PDT Washington --

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has more than quadrupled the rent on her San Francisco district office, making the $18,736-a-month cost of her new South of Market space the highest in the House, according to a new report.

Her rent is nearly double that of the next-highest rent among House members. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., pays $10,600 a month for his Manhattan office, while representatives from Sacramento, Boston and Los Angeles pay nearly that much, the report said.

The financial data were compiled from public records by the nonprofit Sunlight Foundation and Roll Call, a political newspaper. Information from the database is not yet available online.

Pelosi moved in the fall from the federal building at 450 Golden Gate Ave. to the 18-story federal building at 90 Seventh St. She had been paying about $4,300 a month for her old office, Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/15/BABD1DV3H5.DTL

It is a federal bldg...right?

Is it any wonder she's so totally out of touch?

But we also receive the rent since it's a federal building.

I guess I'm not really familiar with how federal buildings work.

But, is either privately owned, or owned by the city or county.Just because it says "federal " on it, does not mean it is owned by the govt.

That makes absolutely zero sense to me. Why wouldn't the federal government save money by building and operating the federal building themselves? Just more corporate welfare.

And continues to this day.

My company got rid of all the office buildings they could years ago, otherwise you're anchored to them, have to pay for upkeep etc.

for staff, meeting rooms, etc -- so, i wouldn't put too much poopie into this.

San Francisco is one of the ones where it is very expensive. I imagine she has a rather large suite of offices, too. Might be out of line in price, but I doubt it.

If the Govt. owns it, why would she have to pay rent?

That's a pretty normal thing. Either that, or the building is privately owned. That's also common these days with federal buildings. I doubt it, though, in this case.

I was waiting for someone to inject some reality into this conversation.

The joy of virtual interactions.

That's not to BUY it, that's to RENT it. She quadrupled her rent in this economy? How Leona Helmsely-esque of her.

I think I WOULD put much poopie on this. Utter tone-deafness...goes quite well with the 80 grand of taxpayer money she spent on booze for her plane last year.

What else could be done with that quarter million?

I think those in the US could take a few lessons. Neither here nor there.

that is since it's a Federal Building owned by the government. It's also a fairly new building, completed in 2005 and one of the 'greener' projects in SF:



Now, considering that most tenants are paying more than average in commercial green buildings on a per sq ft basis due to increased construction costs that would be re-couped by an offset in lower utility costs - this is pretty much a non story of typical Republican outrage manufacture.

Then add in the additional cost for security for the person third in line of succession for the Presidency (who is constantly vilified on hate radio to the militia wackos out there) and there might even have been a move based on a Secret Service request or something rather than the way it's being portrayed as some over spending liberal woman in search of more vanity or fancy draperies.

As often as I am shocked by the RW dumbed-downs who jump at every bone tossed out by the RNC, I'm even more amazed to see some of the folks here at DU jump just as quickly to the same conclusions. How are we going to counteract the misinformation to them when we can't even seem to do it among ourselves?

that the land and building are OWNED by the federal Govt.?

As he stated.

http://www.cement.org/buildings/buildings_green_sffb.asp

any of the external links in the wiki article show the building is owned by General Services Admin and that it's home to many different gov't offices

The architects website - http://www.morphopedia.com/projects/san-francisco-federal-building

or on the GSA website (you'll have to scroll to it) 0 http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/channelView.do?pageTypeId=8199&channelPage=%2Fep%2Fchannel%2FgsaOverview.jsp&channelId=-25081

Even if the GSA owns it(in other words US),the taxpayers are still footing the bill for the rent AND property taxes for the whole building? DAMN !!!

enterprise?

GSA built the building with tax dollars, bought the land the same way. Then it 'leases' space out to the various government agencies (and may offer space to non-gov't if no government agencies need the space). So when the Congressperson's budget pays rent, it's paying it back to the taxpayers. Since there's no mortgage, that rent eventually pays back more than the building originally costs

I guess they could simply give office space to everyone, but there would be a lot more room for abuse and perk giving that way I think

And no, Federal buildings (and most State buildings) don't pay property taxes to their local jurisdictions.

Pelosi has been doing a great job the last year and half and the more she gets passed and the senate sits on, the more we want to throw her away. I am ashamed of how none reality based many so called progressives and liberals have become and in the process are now doing the bidding of the right wing.

Also, the Speaker of the House position requires quite a bit more manpower than any regular representative.

:eyes:

I thought that it was about Pelosi......

;)

The rent of $4,300 per month would be very low for San Francisco office space I should think.

Security is a big part of the cost. The cost probably includes everything, guard service, plumbing, water, electricity, repairs, heat, air conditioning, probably everything. The Bay area is prohibitively expensive even compared to Los Angeles.

...into a seat at the Rich Man's Table.
She has never looked back.
.
.
.
Sad.
I used to be one of her strongest supporters when she was an unqualified Liberal Spokeswoman.

Paulson with Co-Conspirators

for an office.


That is life in a big crowded city .

I can see how it hurts.

she has many constituents without jobs or insurance, probably many without homes right now. While I like her and appreciate all of her hard work, we are in a lean period and need everyone to put their best financial foot forward. I would much rather that money be spent on a service for her constituents which has been cut back, for example.

There's no reason why we can't lead by example.

isn't it? No? Never mind. After all, "NOTHING is too good for our troops", and nothing is precisely what the speaker is going to make sure they get.

Probably on the low side.

... that the real fault lies with the landlord.

Hekate

ugly building

She represents the little people.