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.