Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Inventor
Original Poster
#1 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 6:39 AM
Default $236,000 To Renovate Office Bathroom!
BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Workers recently completed a $236,000 renovation to U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne's office bathroom in Washington, D.C., including asbestos and lead paint removal, handicapped access, a refrigerator and shower, and wood paneling to match the rest of the office.

Kempthorne, Idaho's former governor, won't get much chance to use it, however, since his job ends Jan. 20...

http://www.2news.tv/news/local/37129074.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local...nal_speech.html

The Republicans on the Hill came out today to voice their concern about the mass spending Bill that Obama wants ready to jump start the economy and they are hoping/demanding a say on how the money is spent. Do we the people want them anywhere near the Bill/money?

I think, not only do I not want them near the Bill/Money, I want them to stop hiding behind the motto/Label, Fiscal Conservative, as that label is deceptive and misrepresent their spending habits.

So, was the money ($236,000.00) a conservative amount to redo a bathroom or are we being disrespected by the politicians/Fiscal Conservatives?

Fiscal conservatism and tax cuts were stated as their motto (they seem happy about the same tax cuts, the same one they labeled Obama a socialist for, back in November) which leave to ask the question, "Who do they think they are fooling"?
Advertisement
Banned
#2 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 7:02 AM
Well I can accept that everything but the fridge probably was needed, which would've made the renovation rather pricey to begin with, why the fridge? Seriously....who honestly puts a fridge in their bathroom? Is the bathroom some sort of kitchen/bathroom?
Inventor
Original Poster
#3 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 7:17 AM
No, not a kitchen bathroom, but, who puts a kitchen in a bathroom? This is a one person office with their own bathroom. As fickle as it all is, I would have preferred they built a house for some homeless person down on their luck. I only hope that bathroom is not better than his home, that would really be messed up!
#4 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 10:32 AM
I have a fridge in the bathroom -- a very small one for medications that must be kept cold.
I would assume it's something like that -- and if there were lead/asbestos and otherr hazardous materials in the walls, I am not at all surprised it was that much money. It makes me wonder about the rest of the residence, though.
#5 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 10:35 AM
who puts a fridge in their bathroom? that's just unsanitary & disgusting. (I'm a germ-a-phobe, sorry!) I could only understand it in the sense that Thaissa said, but just a small one.

and, the price is ridiculous.
Mad Poster
#6 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 10:44 AM
It looks like money laundering to me. For that amount of money you can build a nice two storey brick house over here with all the trimmings. And housing prices are higher here than in US.
Theorist
#7 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 1:20 PM
You left out a few details, UrisStar. You leave out that it was done in an historic zone, which no doubt added to the cost, you leave out that it was overseen by another department to make sure the renovations were appropriate, you leave out that it was actually done UNDER the approved budget, and perhaps the most important part, you leave out that it is only a fraction of the renovations being done to the entire Main Interior building, of which Kempthorne's office is only a part of, with a budget of $243 million. Oh, did I leave out that the plans for this renovation began in 1992, and that this renovation has been in the works for 16 years? Your post implies Kempthorne is doing this himself, as a perk. This is simply not true.

Kempthorne did not unilaterally decide to spend $236,000 on fixing up his bathroom, it is part of a much larger scale renovation of a very old government building, which will update utilities, ensure that the building meets modern day fire codes, ensure that the building is safe, enhancing indoor air quality, etc. Your effort to paint Kempthorne and the Republicans in a negative light would be quite laughable, if there weren't enough sheep out there who are going to believe your post without bothering to read about it.

Shoot, most of that information is in the first link you provided, I didn't even have to dig at all for it. It is amusing that you deliberately left out that part though, because it destroys the image of what you were trying to say, that the GOP is being hypocritical when it comes to spending. Kempthorne and the Republicans just happen to be in power during this much needed renovation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Inventor
Original Poster
#8 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 2:36 PM
Hmm, so let me see if I understand this, We hear the outcry and the lets oversee anything that is going to be done to improve schools, infrastructure, transportation, health care because there is never enough money to get those things done as it speaks more to socialism. With fiscal conservatism it is okay and understandable if plans were made 16 years ago to renovate a bathroom with some minor add-on like a shower and a freezer plus a refrigerator at the tune of whatever it cost the people because it is an historic district?

Fiscal conservative is just a slogan? There is no oversight because it was in the planning for sixteen years? The Department of Interior may be in a historic district but it seems, under George W. Bush it became a building of ill repute! Say what you must, but the people were/are not being serve, no way no how.
#9 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 2:50 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
You left out a few details, UrisStar. You leave out that it was done in an historic zone, which no doubt added to the cost, you leave out that it was overseen by another department to make sure the renovations were appropriate, you leave out that it was actually done UNDER the approved budget, and perhaps the most important part, you leave out that it is only a fraction of the renovations being done to the entire Main Interior building, of which Kempthorne's office is only a part of, with a budget of $243 million. Oh, did I leave out that the plans for this renovation began in 1992, and that this renovation has been in the works for 16 years? Your post implies Kempthorne is doing this himself, as a perk. This is simply not true.

Kempthorne did not unilaterally decide to spend $236,000 on fixing up his bathroom, it is part of a much larger scale renovation of a very old government building, which will update utilities, ensure that the building meets modern day fire codes, ensure that the building is safe, enhancing indoor air quality, etc. Your effort to paint Kempthorne and the Republicans in a negative light would be quite laughable, if there weren't enough sheep out there who are going to believe your post without bothering to read about it.

Shoot, most of that information is in the first link you provided, I didn't even have to dig at all for it. It is amusing that you deliberately left out that part though, because it destroys the image of what you were trying to say, that the GOP is being hypocritical when it comes to spending. Kempthorne and the Republicans just happen to be in power during this much needed renovation.


I fail to see how a $243 million dollar renovation (historic district or not) of a government building negates any outrage about a $236,000 bathroom renovation. It only pisses me off more. I'm just not sure who to direct my anger at!
Theorist
#10 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 3:19 PM
The bathroom renovation is part of the larger renovation being done to the Main Interior Building (Home of the Department of the Interior). When you have to remove lead based paint, there are environmental issues you have to consider, safety procedures you have to follow that you wouldn't need for oil based paints, etc, which all adds up in price. Then, when you consider the asbestos in the walls, that requires tearing down the entire wall, again following unusually strict safety procedures because of the asbestos, which takes time. Time and unusual procedures means higher costs. This work that they did needed to be done. You simply cannot have lead painted walls made using asbestos in a government building. Then, you have to pay all of the workers doing this. Not only are they certainly going to be well paid union workers, but there are certainly going to be more than a few of them. This isn't a simple one weekend renovation like you would do at your home, this is a large scale project.

I would like to see a breakdown of the costs for the bathroom, if such information exists. I would bet that a significant portion of that budget also affected other areas around it, and that the 236,000 applied to more than the bathroom alone.

But either way, the point remains the same. UrisStar tried to paint it as a GOP spending spree while blasting Obama's plan to spend, she tried to make it about Kempthorne giving himself a perk, about Republicans irresponsibly spending, and that was an absolute falsehood.

Quote: Originally posted by UrisStar
Hmm, so let me see if I understand this, We hear the outcry and the lets oversee anything that is going to be done to improve schools, infrastructure, transportation, health care because there is never enough money to get those things done as it speaks more to socialism. With fiscal conservatism it is okay and understandable if plans were made 16 years ago to renovate a bathroom with some minor add-on like a shower and a freezer plus a refrigerator at the tune of whatever it cost the people because it is an historic district?


Those plans weren't for a bathroom, UrisStar, they were for the entire Main Interior Building. The bathroom is just a part of it. Kempthorne didn't create the plans. Those plans began development under Bush Sr, continued during all 8 Clinton years, and began construction in 2002. The President had nothing to do with it, Kempthorne had nothing to do with it. It wouldn't have mattered one bit if the President was Bush, Gore, or Kerry, or if the office was filled by a Republican, Democrat, Green Party member, or Communist. This isn't a Republican project, nor is it a Democrat project. The Main Interior Building was originally built in the 1930s, was seriously under code, and they had to fix it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Inventor
Original Poster
#11 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 3:32 PM
How is it a falsehood? The fiscal conservatives give off the impression that they are concern about spending, but the reality is that their concern is only when the other party is doing the spending. Spending the past eight years has been way out of control and with the fiscal conservatives reaping the benefits, there was no outcry by the republicans, now all of a sudden they found themselves? They now remember what they stand for? What do they stand for?:confused:
Theorist
#12 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 3:38 PM
What the hell does that have to do with a Government Building renovation project that has been under way through 3 Presidents and both a Democratically and Republican controlled Congress? Citing this as an example of GOP hypocrisy towards being fiscally conservative is a complete red herring. What is your point? Is this massive government renovation project an example of Conservatives being fiscally irresponsible? If that is the case, then you are arguing against making buildings safer...you are saying that getting rid of toxic lead paint and asbestos isn't worth spending money on. If that isn't your case, how exactly are you trying to tie in the renovation of the DOI building with Republicans?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Inventor
Original Poster
#13 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 4:00 PM
Oh, I am sorry, I did not know that fiscal conservatives is selective, silly me. Here I am thinking it is an across the board thing, you know, like they are always concern about spending regardless of who is doing the spending. So it is just a slogan then?:confused:
#14 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 4:01 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
The bathroom renovation is part of the larger renovation being done to the Main Interior Building (Home of the Department of the Interior). When you have to remove lead based paint, there are environmental issues you have to consider, safety procedures you have to follow that you wouldn't need for oil based paints, etc, which all adds up in price. Then, when you consider the asbestos in the walls, that requires tearing down the entire wall, again following unusually strict safety procedures because of the asbestos, which takes time. Time and unusual procedures means higher costs. This work that they did needed to be done. You simply cannot have lead painted walls made using asbestos in a government building. Then, you have to pay all of the workers doing this. Not only are they certainly going to be well paid union workers, but there are certainly going to be more than a few of them. This isn't a simple one weekend renovation like you would do at your home, this is a large scale project.



Any information on the specifics of the building? Square footage and the like? I've been involved in historic building renovations in Manhattan, including full asbestos and lead paint abatement, so I'd be interested in the specifics of the scope of the project as a comparison. And I'm talking Manhattan, not Boise.

Then again, the projects I've been involved in take a year or so...not 16 years! That's ridiculous. The work they did ten years ago already needs upgrading then.

FYI lead paint and asbestos, as a general rule so don't jump all over me, are not that dangerous unless disturbed, causing airborn particles. Chipping lead paint that kids ingest is dangerous too of course. My point is there are plenty of government buildings full of lead paint and asbestos, that wasn't the reason for the abatement and the renovation.

Unless of course some random gov't beaurocrats there are eating lead paint chips. Which mine 'splain a lot.
Theorist
#15 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 4:08 PM
It wasn't just the lead paint and asbestos, there were a whole slew of updates that needed to be done.

http://www.doi.gov/modernization/about/index.html

From the "About the Project" tab:

Quote:
The building, which encompasses more than 1.3 million square feet, is receiving a major overhaul and will be completely modernized in areas including environmental health and safety; life safety; accessibility; technology; security; and environmental responsibility. Extensive work is being performed to restore and preserve the historic integrity of the building as new systems are put in place. When complete, this 1930s-era building will boast state-of-the-art health and safety features. The modernization project is being managed by DOI in tandem with the General Services Administration.


Again, UrisStar, you fail to tell anyone what the hell fiscal conservativism has to do with this renovation project. Please, try to at least make an attempt to connect them before you go on a tangent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
#16 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 4:13 PM
ty, I'll check out the link. And I have been reading the thread, that was obvious already that there was a *slew of updates*

Does it matter who we want to blame this on? It doesn't matter to me in the least, I can still be outraged by incompetence and mismanagement that wastes public funds. A renovation that takes 16 years and counting can only be blamed on that.

edit: you said 1992, and the link says the reno started in 2002. *reading more before I comment again* I appreciate the link for the true facts.
Theorist
#17 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 4:19 PM
Planning started in 1992, not construction.

The renovation had to be done, while keeping the building functional, while preserving the historic look, and, there was a year long delay after 9/11. It was planned for 12 phases, in order to be the least disruptive to the occupants. I simply fail to see how this counts as incompetence, mismanagement of public funds or anything like that, so I don't understand why we have to "blame" it on anyone or any party. Renovating the building seems like a perfectly legitimate expenditure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
#18 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 4:23 PM
I must refer back to the original post at this point. A $236k bathroom? You seriously don't see anything wrong with that number?
Theorist
#19 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 4:26 PM
Like I mentioned earlier, I suspect that a good portion of that cost isn't for the bathroom alone, that those costs are part of that phase, and includes other aspects as well. I would like to see a breakdown of costs too, how much labor, material, etc. But, to give it some comparison, the restoration of the Statue of Liberty in the 80s took 5 years and cost 230 million dollars, almost as much as the Main Interior Building renovation, and there weren't a large number of employees that had to be relocated or anything like that.

Unless someone can demonstrate gross negligence in the budgeting, I just don't see how this is controversial at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Inventor
Original Poster
#20 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 4:28 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
It wasn't just the lead paint and asbestos, there were a whole slew of updates that needed to be done.

http://www.doi.gov/modernization/about/index.html

From the "About the Project" tab:



Again, UrisStar, you fail to tell anyone what the hell fiscal conservativism has to do with this renovation project. Please, try to at least make an attempt to connect them before you go on a tangent.


The lack of oversight is my attempt to connect the whole idea of fiscal conservatism, I got the impression from the Republicans on the Hill yesterday, that the term fiscal conservatives had more meaning than just words. They tried to puff up much as if one needed to consider the term because that is what they stand for. So in my limited thinking, when I saw the story about the mismanagement of funds on a bathroom, I started to wonder myself how did they come together or was it just a slogan.
Theorist
#21 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 4:30 PM
What lack of oversight? Your own link clearly indicated that the entire project DID have oversight. From your first link:

Quote:
A Department of Interior spokeswoman says the work, done in a historic zone, was overseen by the General Services Administration to make sure it was "appropriate and costs were reasonable."


Nor was there any mention of funds being mismanaged in the article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Inventor
Original Poster
#22 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 4:42 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
What lack of oversight? Your own link clearly indicated that the entire project DID have oversight. From your first link:



Nor was there any mention of funds being mismanaged in the article.


The lack of not questioning the amount spent of the people's money. Mismanagement would be my take away from the project when considering we have children in schools with the same issues and yet they are place on the back burner. My new year resolution is to educate myself on the conservatives ideology as a way to better understand why the logic makes no sense to me. Give me about a month and maybe I may be more knowledgeable to empathize or not!
Theorist
#23 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 4:47 PM
Again, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CONSERVATISM? You keep making the claim, back it up. This is NOT about Conservatism. This is NOT about Liberalism. This has nothing to do with either political party, in that it is not a partisan issue. It was jointly planned, jointly approved, jointly funded, and the Department of the Interior is not a partisan body. It has nothing to do with Bush, Republicans, Obama, or anything like that. You are trying to make it a partisan issue, when it simply isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Inventor
Original Poster
#24 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 5:09 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
Again, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CONSERVATISM? You keep making the claim, back it up. This is NOT about Conservatism. This is NOT about Liberalism. This has nothing to do with either political party, in that it is not a partisan issue. It was jointly planned, jointly approved, jointly funded, and the Department of the Interior is not a partisan body. It has nothing to do with Bush, Republicans, Obama, or anything like that. You are trying to make it a partisan issue, when it simply isn't.


See that is the thing, while I may agree it should not/never be a partisan thing somehow it always seem to end up that way. Fiscal conservatism is not my word, it is the republicans on the Hill. I am just trying to understand what it means in the scheme of things as it was introduce as if it had meaning. For right now I think it is overrated, but I am open to be convince otherwise. Don't get on the offensive, as it is not a situation to where it is beyond understanding. I could care less about conservatism or liberalism, just want to understand what works and what don't and why.
Theorist
#25 Old 6th Jan 2009 at 5:30 PM
No, UrisStar, you aren't understanding me...I am asking how the renovation of this bathroom/Main Interior Building etc has anything to do with being fiscally conservative or not. You tried to tie them together, by bringing up Republican complaints about Obama spending plans...But, you haven't explained WHY they should be tied together, or how this renovation is related at all to their complaints about Obama's spending plans. You claim it shouldn't be a partisan thing, yet you made it a partisan thing in your original post. Which is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
 
Page 1 of 2
Back to top