...and as a part of a deliberate effort to reduce the size and effectiveness of government agencies.
If you relocate a government agency HQ to an area that doesn't have any competitive jobs, you're making it more difficult for that agency to attract and retain tallent.
Just by moving the office in the first place you'll hemorrhage experienced personnel who don't want to move their lives across the country.
To proponents - that's a feature not a bug. Less effective regulation (and eventually deregulation) being the goal.
This is wildly overstated. The big example here is the Department of Agriculture moving headquarters to Kansas City.
But... that's also much closer to the people they are actually regulating. And if you think Kansas City isn't a "real city" able to attract competent bureaucrats, you are way too deep in the swamp.
If you relocate a government agency HQ to an area that doesn't have any competitive jobs, you're making it more difficult for that agency to attract and retain tallent.
Just by moving the office in the first place you'll hemorrhage experienced personnel who don't want to move their lives across the country.
To proponents - that's a feature not a bug. Less effective regulation (and eventually deregulation) being the goal.