Talk:Federal Real Estate Board

Copyedit
I have accepted the request to copyedit this article. Please post any questions or comments to this talk page. I will keep you posted on developments. David Thibault (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I posted some copy-editing queries. Please read them over. David Thibault (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have completed my first copy-editing pass. Please review the queries that I have posted below. Thanks! David Thibault (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have completed my second copy-editing pass. Please review the queries posted below (many of them only require you to sign off on them). Thanks! David Thibault (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * All queries have been resolved. Copyediting is completed. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. It was a pleasure working on the article! David Thibault (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

First Federal Real Estate Board (1921)

 * In the second paragraph, readers may have difficulty figuring out which noun the pronoun “its” is referring to (the “National Association of Real Estate Boards” or “the government”):


 * The creation of the board was lauded by the National Association of Real Estate Boards, who had been advocating for improvements in the government's methods of managing its real estate.


 * Here are two possible revisions (depending on what the intended meaning is):


 * “…who had been advocating for improvements in the government’s methods of managing federal real estate.” (if “its” is referring to the government)
 * intended meaning - "its" refers to the government MB 22:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * “…who had been advocating for improvements in the management of its real estate by the government.” (if “its” is referring to the National Association) David Thibault (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC) ✅


 * In the second paragraph, “The Realtor association” is mentioned. Additional information regarding this association should be included. Is it the national association of realtors? David Thibault (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Realtor association refers to the same NAoREB from the prior sentence. MB 22:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC) ✅


 * The text (first paragraph) indicates that the first board was actually created in 1922 (although the executive order was signed in 1921). Do you want to make the section heading reflect this? (Change "1921" to "1922") David Thibault (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It probably shouldn't say it was created in both 1921 and 1922. I re-read the source and the executive order on 1921 "established" the board in one high-level sentence. The language in the 1922 "Circular No. 54" also "established" the board but with a long paragraph detailing it's purpose and organization. Perhaps the best way to resolve this is to say in the first paragraph that "An executive order by President Warren Harding on November 8, 1921, called for the creation of various boards..." Then we could use 1922 as the actual year of creation in the section heading, because that was when more concrete activity occurred. MB 03:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have made the change that you suggested. Please review it and sign off on it. Thanks. David Thibault (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good MB 13:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ✅


 * When was the first Federal Real Estate Board abolished? The article states that it was established by an executive order, but was there another executive order that abolished it? I recommend including this information. The way the article reads now, we jump to the second Federal Real Estate Board without any kind of closure on the fate of the first one. David Thibault (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I would like to include this but haven't found any information online. We can only mention what we can source. MB 13:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. The article is still fine. The section you've added to the Talk page will hopefully help answer the question. I'll deem this query resolved. David Thibault (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ✅

Reports

 * I revised the second last sentence in the first paragraph to make it parallel in structure. Please review the change to ensure that I did not change the meaning:


 * “It also reported that it had approved over 2500 leases, approved the sale of 100 properties, and approved the purchase of 24 others.” David Thibault (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good ✅


 * In the second paragraph it’s unclear what “lease amounts” refers to. I recommend including a short definition in parentheses. Also, is the increase a positive or a negative development? Why?
 * lease amounts is the rent paid by the government to lease space in buildings that it does not own. Increasing is negative for the government as lessee but positive for the lessor.MB 22:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In the prior year, over 2000 leases were approved and the board noted that the lease amounts on many post offices were increasing. David Thibault (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a short explanation for the readers on what lease amounts refers to. Please review the change:
 * "In the prior year, over 2000 leases were approved; the board noted that lease amounts—rent paid by the government—on a number of post offices were increasing." David Thibault (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good MB 03:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC) ✅


 * I revised the last sentence in the second paragraph to make it clearer. Please review the change (shown in green text) to ensure that I did not change the meaning:


 * The 1924 report also noted that the War Department, Navy Department, Veterans' Bureau, Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Post Office already had well-functioning central departments of real estate that could provide the board with information on their properties; the report urged other departments to create such units. David Thibault (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good MB 22:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC) ✅


 * In the last sentence of the fourth paragraph, the phrase “The board’s second new policy” appears. It’s unclear what the board’s first new policy was. I recommend indicating this in the text. David Thibault (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The first new policy was the subject of the entire prior sentence; that in disputes over the suitability of existing space, the burden of proof was on the agency requesting more space. The board was saying it was getting tougher. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 03:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've revised the paragraph. Please review it to make sure I did not change its meaning. David Thibault (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 13:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ✅


 * In the first paragraph I changed "it" to "the board". Please verify the change, shown below, to ensure that I did not change the meaning:


 * "It [the 1923 report] reported that it the board had approved over 2500 leases, approved the sale of 100 properties, and approved the purchase of 24 others."
 * Good <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 13:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ✅

Membership
I’ve improved the layout of the Membership subsection and reworded the text for clarity. The text is no longer one complete paragraph (Each of the three sentences are now their own separate paragraph). Please ensure that the reference for this section is applied as necessary. David Thibault (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I moved the ref up to apply to the whole subsection. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 03:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC) ✅

Lead
Reference Seven (References section) shows "Executive Order 8304", but the lead sentence for this section showed "Executive Order 8034". I have corrected the typo but I still need you to sign off on the change. Thanks! David Thibault (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 13:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ✅

Background
The last clause in the second paragraph may need to be revised for clarity. The word “equivalent” does not seem to be the correct word. Should it be replaced with “estimated”? See possible revision below:


 * "[the committee] limited its function to assessing the amount and value of Federal property and the equivalent estimated tax value of the property." David Thibault (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that really conveys what I meant. The sentence is trying to say the board limited itself to estimating the value of Federal property and the what the taxes would be on the property (if it weren't tax-exempt) to quantify how much property tax other governments were losing. The source says "potential property taxes" - I was trying to reword this. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 03:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How about changing "equivalent" to "possible"? ("...the possible tax value of the property.") David Thibault (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I reworded to align it more with the prior sentence, now it says "lost tax revenue" <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 13:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ✅

1943 Report

 * The first paragraph of this section contains text enclosed in quotation marks. It appears to be a direct quotation of a section heading from an external source. If it is a direct quotation, a reference needs to be applied to it; the text should also be completely un-capitalized so it conforms to the complete sentence. I have not altered the text as I do not want to change its meaning; I will leave it to you to add the necessary reference and to un-capitalize the text.
 * This is not a section heading from an external source; It is the title of the 1943 report. I left it capitalized and added a ref.<b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 03:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I also recommend the following two alterations:
 * Adding the introductory phrase “In its 1943 report,” to the beginning of the paragraph, but only if this is true.
 * Removing the paragraph break (combining the two paragraphs into one). David Thibault (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Everything this section is from the 1943 report. I added a clause. Go ahead and combine paragraphs if you think it would flow better. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 03:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed your changes and everything looks fine! David Thibault (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC) ✅


 * Changed “It” to “The board” at the beginning of the third paragraph. Okay? David Thibault (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I was just trying to NOT start three paragraphs in a row with "The board". <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 03:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The change was necessary so readers knew whether "the board" or "the report" was the subject of the sentence. With the change you made to the second paragraph, only two of the paragraphs start with "The board", so that worked out ! David Thibault (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC) ✅


 * The text in this subsection seems to be saying that the board approved “federal contributions” in certain cases, and rejected “compensation” in all cases. There are different terms being used throughout the section that seem to mean the same thing. In order to achieve consistency and clarity, I recommend the following edits (please review them carefully to ensure that I have not changed the meaning):


 * Second paragraph: “It felt instead that federal payments federal contributions in lieu of taxes for certain classes of property would be equitable.”


 * Third paragraph: “…should be exempt from taxation or compensation federal contributions.


 * Fourth paragraph: “With regard to property used for national defense, the board said payments federal contributions should be made for properties acquired after September 8, 1939. David Thibault (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think saying payments changes the meaning. A payment would be due if the property was taxed. The government was volunteering to "help" distressed governments and considered making voluntary "contributions" (the term they used in the report). I reworked all to be more consistent (using compensation). <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 13:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ✅

Membership
In the list, the first entry needs attention. Should “Public Buildings Administration” appear as entry number two? David Thibault (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this just means that the "Federal Works Agency" was within the "Public Buildings Administration". This came from the source, the other members had no further qualifying info - perhaps the FWA was not as well know. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 03:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've enclosed "Public Buildings Administration" in parentheses so readers will understand that it is a part of entry one in the list. Please review the change and sign off on it. Thanks! David Thibault (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 13:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ✅

Demise of 1920's Board
The article does not explain how the first board ended. As of 8/2017 no mention can be found online after 1927. During the great depression and the Roosevelt administration, everything changed and the government was spending massively on stimulus and jobs programs. So it isn't surprising that the board ceased to function. It probably did not continue through that era and probably did not exist when the 1939 board was formed. No sources have been found that say anything about how the first board ended. With the aftermath of Black Friday and the depression - perhaps its end was informal as the Federal government was focused on the New Deal programs. Its end may not have been widely reported. Further research required to resolve this question. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 13:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)