Overview
Title
To direct the Administrator of General Services to sell the property known as the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 1779 is a plan to sell a big building named after Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco by a certain date. It's like when someone decides to sell their house by next year and wants to make sure they get a good price for it.
Summary AI
H. R. 1779 aims to sell the property known as the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building located at 90 7th St, San Francisco, California. The bill directs the Administrator of General Services to either dispose of the property or sell it at fair market value by May 31, 2025. The act is officially titled the "Stop Wasteful Allocations of Money for Pelosi Act" or the "SWAMP Act."
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
House Bill 1779, introduced in the 119th Congress, aims to mandate the sale of a federal property known as the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building located in San Francisco, California. The bill prescribes that the Administrator of General Services should either sell or dispose of the property by May 31, 2025. If direct disposal is not feasible, the building must be sold at fair market value and for its highest and best use. The act is humorously titled the "Stop Wasteful Allocations of Money for Pelosi Act" or the "SWAMP Act."
Significant Issues
The bill appears to carry political undertones, given the explicit mention of Speaker Nancy Pelosi in its title. Such naming can be perceived as having a partisan or targeted intention, provoking political debate. The acronym "SWAMP Act" offers little insight into the substance and intent of the bill, potentially misleading public understanding.
In terms of real estate specifics, the bill outlines selling the property for its fair market value, with instructions for "highest and best use" — terms that could introduce interpretation challenges. The absence of a defined method or oversight mechanism for determining fair market value may lead to transparency concerns. Furthermore, the mandate for disposal by a fixed date, without allowance for market conditions, might negate optimal sale results.
Additionally, criteria for determining the infeasibility of disposal according to subchapter III are not clearly defined, creating room for ambiguity and inconsistent application. There are broader concerns about whether the sale meets a genuine need for disposing of federal properties or represents politicized or wasteful spending.
Impacts on the Public
The implications of the bill for the general public center on fiscal management and the appearance of political neutrality. Should the sale reduce unnecessary federal spending, taxpayers might benefit from more efficient allocation of government resources. However, if perceived as politically motivated, public trust in legislative procedures could be eroded.
Impact on Stakeholders
For stakeholders in real estate, especially in San Francisco, the sale could introduce a significant property to the market, potentially affecting property values or development opportunities. Local businesses and government entities might be interested in acquiring the building, but concerns about fair pricing and procedural transparency could affect their engagement.
Political stakeholders, particularly those aligned with Speaker Pelosi, could perceive this act as a partisan maneuver, thereby fueling political tensions. Conversely, those advocating for reduced federal expenditures might support the sale as a means to eliminate what they see as unnecessary government assets.
In summary, while the bill ostensibly addresses federal property disposal, the explicit targeting within its title and potential real estate complexities introduce a mix of practical and political ramifications. These factors could significantly influence public perception and stakeholder actions.
Issues
The title 'Stop Wasteful Allocations of Money for Pelosi Act' explicitly mentions Pelosi, which may indicate a political bias or targeted nature that could be perceived as unfavorable. (Section 1)
The fair market value requirement for sale is potentially unclear without a defined method or oversight mechanism to establish what constitutes 'fair market value' or ensuring transparency in valuation processes. (Section 2)
The directive to sell for the 'highest and best use' introduces potential ambiguity if there are competing interpretations of this term, leading to possible disputes or mismanagement in selling the property. (Section 2)
The bill mandates the sale of a federal building without clearly specifying the criteria for determining if disposal pursuant to subchapter III is 'not feasible,' which could lead to ambiguous interpretation and potentially inconsistent application. (Section 2)
The specification that the sale should occur 'not later than May 31, 2025,' lacks flexibility to account for prevailing market conditions, risking a less advantageous sale outcome. (Section 2)
The acronym 'SWAMP Act' does not provide clarity on the contents of the bill or its intentions beyond the short title, potentially leading to misunderstandings. (Section 1)
There might be concern about whether the building's sale is addressing a genuine need for federal properties' disposal or could constitute wasteful or politically motivated spending. (Section 2)
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this document gives the short title of the act, stating that it can be referred to as the “Stop Wasteful Allocations of Money for Pelosi Act” or simply the “SWAMP Act.”
2. Sale of Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill mandates that by May 31, 2025, the Administrator of General Services must either sell or otherwise dispose of the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building located at 90 7th St, San Francisco, according to certain legal guidelines, or if that is not possible, sell the property at its fair market value for its highest and best use.