These days, what passes for “headline news” over at the San Francisco Chronicle is an expose about Nancy Pelosi's high rent for her San Francisco District Office. Trying to hit on the “out-of-control government spending” meme, the opening paragraph is:
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.
The article goes on to say that Pelosi's rent is nearly double that of the next highest House member, Jerrold Nadler from Manhattan. Again with the theme: Pelosi's spending is out of control.
However, the Chronicle neglects to mention that the federal government owns the Federal Building. So the rent for Pelosi's office goes from one of Uncle Sam's pockets to the other. What's more, the federal government kinda has a monoply on that whole Federal Building business. So if Pelosi wanted to shop around for cheaper rent, she couldn't.
The better question–and one left untouched by the oh-so-inquisitive Chronicle–is this: Why is the federal government charging $6.09 per square foot per month for an office building in the Mission? The average rent for Class A office space in that neighborhood is $3 per square foot per month. Even in SF's most expensive office market, the North Financial District, the average rent for primo space is only $4.50 per square foot per month. If the government charged Pelosi the market rent for her office, it would cost $9,225, less than House members in New York, Los Angeles, and Sacramento pay for their District Offices.
In the end, this is a story about the federal government gouging itself on rent. Not quite as sexy as trying to show that Nancy Pelosi is renting extravagant digs while the little people suffer.
is what accounts for the rent difference. Which is sorta-semi-halfway legitimate. But this is a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose kind of thing for the hacks.
Rent too high? Gummint can’t do anything cheaply — and they can go after people like Pelosi on these non-stories.
Rent too low? Gummint is stupidly not exploiting its resources correctly, and should just privatize this function.
Rent just right? Why is Gummint in this business? It’s not doing anything the market wouldn’t.
I wonder if her special security needs add to her square-footage charge. Gotta keep that GetEqual rabble at bay, after all.
Seriously, though, as Speaker, she’s second in line to the Presidency, after a serial stroke sufferer. I don’t begrudge her any costs, and Bronstein should be ashamed of himself. As you rightly point out, she didn’t set the rent, the GSA did. And the Secret Service, or Capitol Police, or Executive Protection, surely required she move into the new courthouse for very good reason.
asdf
If it’s in the lobby (equivalent to prime retail space) that would justify a higher nominal rent.
I wouldn’t expect ex-reporters from a hearst publication to understand that, but she IS 3rd in line to succeed the president, which is why she requires more security than when she was just some member of congress.
plus SF realestate is overvalued anyway, no matter who is selling/renting it. when the next quake hits and scares off the noobs, watch things come back to reality.
You guys have touched on most of the absurdity of this article. The other thing I’m wondering though is why do they phrase it “Pelosi has quadrupled her rent”?
Since when is rent set by the tenant? Could all the copy editors at Hearst really not think of a better way to phrase this?