This bill directs the Administrator of General Services to dispose of the property known as the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building at 90 7th St, San Francisco, CA. The disposal must be completed under Subchapter III of Chapter 5 of Title 40, United States Code, not later than May 31, 2025.
If a disposal under that subchapter proves infeasible, the Administrator must sell the property at fair market value and for the highest and best use, with the sale subject to a survey deemed appropriate by the Administrator. The act is titled the Stop Wasteful Allocations of Money for Pelosi Act, or SWAMP Act, and is presented as a mechanism to unlock value from an underutilized federal asset.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Administrator of General Services must dispose of the property described by disposing of the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building by a set deadline, first via the standard federal disposal path under 40 U.S.C. Subchapter III; if that path isn’t feasible, the property must be sold at fair market value for the highest and best use, with the process contingent on a survey approved by the Administrator.
Who It Affects
Federal asset management processes, the General Services Administration, and potential private sector buyers in the San Francisco market; local stakeholders may be indirectly impacted by any redevelopment or vacancy associated with the site.
Why It Matters
The measure shifts a single high-profile asset out of federal inventory, tests a faster sale mechanism, and signals a stronger emphasis on realizing market value for underutilized properties.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill, introduced in the 119th Congress, instructs the General Services Administration to sell the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building in San Francisco. The sale must follow the standard federal disposal process under Subchapter III of Title 40 U.S.C. by May 31, 2025.
If that disposal route is not feasible, the Administrator must sell the property at fair market value for the highest and best use. The property at 90 7th St, including the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building, is subject to a survey as deemed appropriate by the Administrator.
This act is framed as a way to stop wasteful allocations of federal money, hence the shorthand SWAMP Act.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Administrator must dispose of the specified property by May 31, 2025 under 40 U.S.C. Subchapter III.
If Subchapter III disposal isn’t feasible, the property must be sold at fair market value for the highest and best use.
The property is the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building, located at 90 7th St, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Disposal is contingent on a survey the Administrator determines appropriate.
The act may be cited as the Stop Wasteful Allocations of Money for Pelosi Act (SWAMP Act).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title and purposes
This section designates the act as the Stop Wasteful Allocations of Money for Pelosi Act, or SWAMP Act, and sets the general intent to address the management of federal assets by directing the disposal of the specified property. The language signals a streamlined, value-focused approach to asset disposition.
Sale of Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building
The Administrator of General Services must dispose of the property described (the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building at 90 7th St, San Francisco) not later than May 31, 2025. Disposal should proceed under subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 40, United States Code. If such disposal is not feasible, the Administrator must sell the property at fair market value and for the highest and best use, with that sale subject to a survey determined appropriate by the Administrator. This section anchors the sale in established federal procurement and real estate disposal law while allowing an alternative path if standard disposal proves impractical.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- U.S. taxpayers, who may benefit from converting underutilized federal property into value-generating assets or reducing carrying costs.
- General Services Administration, which gains a clear directive to realize value from a fixed asset and streamline asset management.
- Private sector real estate developers and investors in the San Francisco market who could acquire and repurpose the site.
- Local construction and professional-services firms that could participate in appraisal, surveying, and potential redevelopment activities.
- Communities and local stakeholders who may experience economic activity or urban redevelopment linked to the asset’s sale.
Who Bears the Cost
- GSA, which may incur administrative costs for disposal activities, including appraisals, surveys, and legal work.
- The federal budget and taxpayers if sale proceeds do not fully offset carrying costs or if the sale process incurs unanticipated expenses.
- Local businesses and residents who might experience disruption or shifts in foot traffic during transition or redevelopment.
- Local government or agencies if redevelopment alters property tax bases or service needs tied to the site.
- The broader San Francisco real estate market could face volatility if the asset sale introduces a large, uncertain transaction.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize a rapid disposal under a predefined deadline and a standard disposal route, potentially at value that reflects urgency, versus pursuing the highest possible sale price through a market-based path that may take longer and introduce more variables.
The bill tightly constrains disposal to the existing federal asset-disposal framework, with a hard deadline that may compress valuation and marketing efforts. It relies on the availability of a feasible disposal path under Subchapter III or, failing that, a market-based sale at fair value for the highest use.
The text does not specify how sale proceeds would be allocated or whether any buyer restrictions would apply, which could raise questions about public accountability and fiscal controls. Additionally, the requirement for a survey to accompany the sale introduces an additional step that may affect timing and the assessed value of the property.
These tensions reflect the broader policy challenge of balancing swift asset disposition with fair value and public accountability.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.