Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#21

Post by easton »

njarboe wrote: post #11
mtalantikite wrote: post #7

Years ago I read about how Norway was redistributing agencies out of Oslo and into other cities across the country. This felt like it made intuitive sense, as you'd maybe get to distribute jobs to other localities and break up the concentration of bureaucracy. I haven't read about the outcomes, but I've always wondered what could happen if the DC area did the same.

On the other hand keeping all of the federal workforce in D.C, instead of the states, reduces the political desire to prop up federal projects just for the local jobs. Much easier to reduce wasteful spending when you don't layoff people you want voting for you.

I'd assume (?) this effect is minimized by so much of the workforce living outside the district (600k people live in the district, ~6 million in the DC/Maryland/Virginia statistical area).

The Maryland and Virginia sides have representation (which is very pro-government jobs, as they should be considering their constituency).

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#22

Post by palmfacehn »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #3

Why the clickbait title? The article is called "HUD Plans to Move Operations From Washington to Virginia"

[insert event], partisan politics and why we should all be outraged. Regardless of title, I'm not sure why the post is here at all.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#23

Post by alphager »

mtalantikite wrote: post #7

Years ago I read about how Norway was redistributing agencies out of Oslo and into other cities across the country. This felt like it made intuitive sense, as you'd maybe get to distribute jobs to other localities and break up the concentration of bureaucracy. I haven't read about the outcomes, but I've always wondered what could happen if the DC area did the same.

Germany has been doing it since 1949. It leads to stronger regional centers and dishes the capital effect. Germany has many larger cities all over the country.

France has been doing the opposite, leading to a concentration in and around Paris and few major cities outside of Ile de France.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#24

Post by palmfacehn »

bilbo0s wrote: post #15
mtalantikite wrote: post #7

Years ago I read about how Norway was redistributing agencies out of Oslo and into other cities across the country. This felt like it made intuitive sense, as you'd maybe get to distribute jobs to other localities and break up the concentration of bureaucracy. I haven't read about the outcomes, but I've always wondered what could happen if the DC area did the same.

Not familiar with how Norway works? But I am familiar with the US. We have so much corruption that it's a virtual certainty any moves of the kind you postulate would be precipitated by a desire for more and easier access to corruption. We actually have a long history of doing this sort of thing in the US. Sometimes we get more corruption, but the service in question is objectively better off. (Some moves made by the…

There's an interesting contradiction in the popular discourse here at HN. The government is simultaneously characterized as unable to make the correct decisions and at the same time, characterized as the only viable mechanism to conduct scientific research. These two themes seem contradictory.

If they cannot make the "right" decisions or lack competence in leadership, it wouldn't be unreasonable to doubt the efficacy of their research leadership. How could they possibly identify the problems which are worthy of solving under these conditions?

If their leadership is competent, if they are correctly identifying the necessary research projects, then why to proponents of government directed "science" have so many gripes in regards to the direction which government science is directed?

https://www.thoughtco.com/taxpayers-paid-for-shrimp-treadmil...

>The shrimp treadmill study cost taxpayers more than $3 million over a decade.

>The National Science Foundation, not Congress, approved the shrimp treadmill study funding.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#25

Post by micromacrofoot »

xeromal wrote: post #12
bachmeier wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the current status, but during Trump I, they moved USDA research from Washington, DC to Kansas City.

Doesn't seem like a bad place to move it to!

except that no one wants to move from DC to Kansas City, it's essentially designed to get all your best employees to quit

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#26

Post by rafram »

mtalantikite wrote: post #7

Years ago I read about how Norway was redistributing agencies out of Oslo and into other cities across the country. This felt like it made intuitive sense, as you'd maybe get to distribute jobs to other localities and break up the concentration of bureaucracy. I haven't read about the outcomes, but I've always wondered what could happen if the DC area did the same.

The Trump administration is doing the opposite of that — they've been aggressively closing regional branch offices and consolidating agencies in the DC area:

https://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/04/trump-a...

https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2025/04/trump-administration...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-hhs-close-regional-lega...

https://democrats-naturalresources.house.gov/media/press-rel...

If this NSF move is an indication that the White House now wants to distribute jobs more widely across the country, well, that's a real reversal of course from only a couple months ago.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#27

Post by ceejayoz »

palmfacehn wrote: post #24
bilbo0s wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not familiar with how Norway works? But I am familiar with the US. We have so much corruption that it's a virtual certainty any moves of the kind you postulate would be precipitated by a desire for more and easier access to corruption. We actually have a long history of doing this sort of thing in the US. Sometimes we get more corruption, but the service in question is objectively better off. (Some moves made by the…

There's an interesting contradiction in the popular discourse here at HN. The government is simultaneously characterized as unable to make the correct decisions and at the same time, characterized as the only viable mechanism to conduct scientific research. These two themes seem contradictory. If they cannot make the "right" decisions or lack competence in leadership, it wouldn't be unreasonable to doubt the efficacy…

> characterized as the only viable mechanism to conduct scientific research…

It's the best way of funding basic (i.e. not immediately profitable) research.

Stuff like $80k to study the bacteria in Yellowstone's hot springs… which brought us PCR. https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/yvo/news/how-a-thermophil...

> How could they possibly identify the problems which are worthy of solving under these conditions?

They don't. That's why they have you submit a proposal.

> if they are correctly identifying the necessary research projects, then why to proponents of government directed "science" have so many gripes in regards to the direction which government science is directed?

They don't. That study was targeted by opponents of it. (It's also an outright lie.)

https://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139852035/shrimp-on-a-treadmi...

"The treadmills were just a small part of it, a way to measure how shrimp respond to changes in water quality. Burnett says the first treadmill was built by a colleague from scraps and was basically free, and the second was fancier and cost about $1,000. The senator's report was misleading, says Burnett, 'and it suggests that much money was spent on seeing how long a shrimp can run on a treadmill, which was totally out of context.'"

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#28

Post by postexitus »

mtalantikite wrote: post #7

Years ago I read about how Norway was redistributing agencies out of Oslo and into other cities across the country. This felt like it made intuitive sense, as you'd maybe get to distribute jobs to other localities and break up the concentration of bureaucracy. I haven't read about the outcomes, but I've always wondered what could happen if the DC area did the same.

The UK is actively relocating many civil service roles from London to various locations across the UK as part of the "Places for Growth" initiative. DVLA is in Swansea, Planning in Bristol, Dept of Work and Pensions in Wrexham, - Great British Energy will be HQ'd in Aberdeen I believe.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#29

Post by maratc »

alphager wrote: post #23
mtalantikite wrote: post #7

Years ago I read about how Norway was redistributing agencies out of Oslo and into other cities across the country. This felt like it made intuitive sense, as you'd maybe get to distribute jobs to other localities and break up the concentration of bureaucracy. I haven't read about the outcomes, but I've always wondered what could happen if the DC area did the same.

Germany has been doing it since 1949. It leads to stronger regional centers and dishes the capital effect. Germany has many larger cities all over the country. France has been doing the opposite, leading to a concentration in and around Paris and few major cities outside of Ile de France.

Germany has been doing it since the Middle Ages, when it was using the HRE moniker for itself.

Re: NSF getting kicked out of headquarters by HUD

#30

Post by nickff »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #20
xeromal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem like a bad place to move it to!

It's not a bad place, but you'd have to move it there slowly if you wanted it to work. Establish a satellite campus, bring a few people there from the original HQ who want to move or will accept whatever incentives you can offer to move, hire locals where possible, work to build relationships like internships with UMKC programs or other local businesses and agencies, hire aggressively from people already in the surro…

The way that politics works these days means that any gradual move like that would likely be reversed by the next administration. The unfortunate reality is that if you want something done, the only option is to do it suddenly.
Post reply on HN