• Design, construct, maintain and operate high performance sustainable buildings in sustainable locations;
• Strengthen the vitality and livability of the communities in which federal facilities are located;
• (Provide a) full accounting of both economic and social benefits and costs;
• Implement strategies and accommodations for transit, travel, training and conferencing that actively support lower-carbon commuting and travel by agency staff;
• Participate in regional transportation planning and recognize community transportation in infrastructure; and
• Ensure that planning for new Federal facilities or new leases includes consideration of sites that are pedestrian friendly, near existing employment centers and are accessible to public transit (while) emphasizing existing central cities.

There is substantial evidence that Arlington and other highly urban communities are much “greener” and perform far better than suburban or rural areas relative to sustainable development outcomes. Arlington Economic Development’s research paper, "How Green Are We?" looked at green development variables related to transportation, buildings, and green jobs and found that Arlington and the District rated far higher on a scale of development related performance measures than any other communities in the region. Factors such as the use of alternative modes of transportation, households without vehicles, average commute length, development intensity, green buildings and green jobs all contribute to more sustainable development outcomes, literally proving that the EO is incentivizing the right factors.

The recently released Interagency Security Committee (ISC) Physical Security Criteria for Federal Facilities is supposed to be compliant and consistent with EO 13514 and therefore should not be biased against urban locations which are clearly preferenced by the Presidential policy. These standards introduce some new terminology which has not fully made its way into common use, but Building Information Models, Sustainable Return on Investment and Total Life Cycle Operating Costs will be the basis on which new federal facilities are built and leased. It is imperative that Arlington clearly understand the new policies and standards so that we can maintain the strong Federal presence that provides the stability of our economy.

Arlington still has much to lose on top of the substantial losses represented by BRAC 2006. Federal office space represents some 19 million square feet of our office base of 44 million square feet. The Federal BRAC action, which will remove some 3.2 million square feet of leased space from the Arlington inventory. It also moves more than 17,000 jobs from Metro accessible locations and places them in locations that have cost more than $1 billion to date in the Washington area alone for new roads that would not have been needed if EO 13514 had been in place in 2006.

Perhaps bad policy begets good policy. EO 13514 supports the location of Federally owned and leased facilities in urban districts. Hopefully, the ISC standards will not have the opposite effect, but will in reality be consistent with the EO. The proof will be in the actions of the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) over the next several years as they make incremental decisions on facility locations. Will they really consider non-cost factors such as transit and pedestrian accessibility and other social costs in creating a greener government while strengthening the vitality and livability of the communities in which federal facilities are located? Or will the growing budget deficit elicit a return to previous practices where even the directly attributable project costs were dropped from the analysis as happened during BRAC?