Moving US capital

[Roadgeekteen]

How would you move the US capital if you had too to make it more centrally located? I think St. Louis or Kansas City would be my choice.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

I would move it to Lebanon KS. It's physically impossible for it to be more centrally located in the lower 48 (unless they annex immediately adjacent areas of Canada and/or Mexico) .

[1995hoo]

If I had to move it somewhere central, I'd probably build an entirely new city so that there wouldn't be the problem of trying to graft all sorts of ugly security measures onto existing public spaces.

[oscar]

If I had to move it somewhere central, I'd probably build an entirely new city so that there wouldn't be the problem of trying to graft all sorts of ugly security measures onto existing public spaces.

An entirely new capital city would almost certainly be a "company town". That would aggravate one of the more unattractive features of our existing capital.

Maybe downsize and/or decentralize the Federal government, so the new capital would fit into an existing major commercial center with a lot more going on than just government. St. Louis or Kansas City could be options, but Dallas/Ft. Worth might be better even though not as centrally located.

[kalvado]

How about putting government on a big ship, sailing to the center of Atlantic ocean and sinking it right there?

[02 Park Ave]

Denver  It is almost the western capital now.

[jp the roadgeek]

I would say a newly built city somewhere along I-44 in MO between Joplin and St. Louis.  It's the closest interstate highway to the population center of the US.

[1995hoo]

If I had to move it somewhere central, I'd probably build an entirely new city so that there wouldn't be the problem of trying to graft all sorts of ugly security measures onto existing public spaces.

An entirely new capital city would almost certainly be a "company town". That would aggravate one of the more unattractive features of our existing capital.

Maybe downsize and/or decentralize the Federal government, so the new capital would fit into an existing major commercial center with a lot more going on than just government. St. Louis or Kansas City could be options, but Dallas/Ft. Worth might be better even though not as centrally located.

Yeah, I had the same thought, but I had trouble finding a non-political way to express it.

[KeithE4Phx]

In the age of the Internet, it's foolish to continue to have our nation's capital in one single city.  Remember, 9/11 could have been a whole lot worse than it was, had the hijackers managed to hit the White House or the Capitol Building. 

Each branch could be in a different city today, none of which should be within range of a nuke (read:  not on either coast).  Congresscritters could locate their offices strictly in their state/district, with votes by electronic means.  Then, for example, locate the White House in Chicago, the Supreme Court building in Denver, and the military (Pentagon II) in Kansas City.   The various government agencies under the Executive Branch could be located pretty much anywhere.

The news media would certainly throw fits, since they'd have to be located somewhere in Flyover Country instead of The Almighty East. 

[The Nature Boy]

In the age of the Internet, it's foolish to continue to have our nation's capital in one single city.  Remember, 9/11 could have been a whole lot worse than it was, had the hijackers managed to hit the White House or the Capitol Building. 

Each branch could be in a different city today, none of which should be within range of a nuke (read:  not on either coast).  Congresscritters could locate their offices strictly in their state/district, with votes by electronic means.  Then, for example, locate the White House in Chicago, the Supreme Court building in Denver, and the military (Pentagon II) in Kansas City.   The various government agencies under the Executive Branch could be located pretty much anywhere.

The news media would certainly throw fits, since they'd have to be located somewhere in Flyover Country instead of The Almighty East. 

One of the biggest problems in Washington is the lack of cooperation among members of Congress. Your proposal would make it substantially worse since no one would ever actually meet. Also, the legislative and executive being in Washington helps for cooperation between the two branches, which is honestly essential to advance policy.

The various government entities COULD NOT ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT be located anywhere. I used to work at a federal agency in Washington and we often had to collaborate with other agencies, including traveling to meetings with people at the other agencies, you can't just spread agencies around the country.

The entire government needs to be the same city for everything to function. Anything else is a mere fantasy.

[ColossalBlocks]

Plato, MO.

It's the population center of the US, so.

[Max Rockatansky]

Bodie, CA the place could use a little extra life. 

[Roadgeekteen]

How about putting government on a big ship, sailing to the center of Atlantic ocean and sinking it right there?

Did the US military conquer Atlantis?

[Brandon]

How about putting government on a big ship, sailing to the center of Atlantic ocean and sinking it right there?

I like that idea.  Barring that, Wake Island sounds like a good choice.  With no airport or docks.

[kkt]

South Africa has the branches of government spread out.  The president, cabinet, and civil service offices are in Pretoria, but the legislature meets in Capetown, the Supreme Court of Appeal is in Bloemfontein, and the constitutional court is in Johannesburg.  I wonder if anyone has written about how well or poorly it works for them.

[oscar]

How about putting government on a big ship, sailing to the center of Atlantic ocean and sinking it right there?

I like that idea.  Barring that, Wake Island sounds like a good choice.  With no airport or docks.

When Alaska was noodling over whether and where to move its state capital (not happening), there was sentiment both for moving the capital closer to the Anchorage area so people there could more easily wring legislators' necks, and for instead moving it somewhere remote and unpleasant like the far western Aleutian Islands.

[AlexandriaVA]

If I had to move it somewhere central, I'd probably build an entirely new city so that there wouldn't be the problem of trying to graft all sorts of ugly security measures onto existing public spaces.

So basically what the Burma/Myanmar did when it moved its capital from the ancient city of Yangon (Rangoon) to the modern city of Naypyidaw.

[AlexandriaVA]

I don't have a source handy, but the majority of federal workers are outside of the Washington metropolitan area (sadly, think back to Oklahoma City as an example of a flyover city with a federal office presence), considering field offices, military bases, ports-of-entry, etc.

It's a fun mental exercise but of little practical use. I imagine the Constitution would need to be amended to seriously move towards any type of highly-distributed federal government. As I recall, there were even issues when the federal government first started moving agencies into nearby Virginia and Maryland.

[Chris]

How would you name a new capital? Americana? Americanopolis? Freedom City?

The capital of the Netherlands is constitutionally Amsterdam, but parliament, government institutions and embassies are in The Hague. Bolivia is another country with a different constitutional capital (Sucre) than the seat of government (La Paz).

[KeithE4Phx]

How would you name a new capital? Americana? Americanopolis? Freedom City?

How about Lobbyville, after those whom our gummint officials really represent?   

[index]

How would you name a new capital? Americana? Americanopolis? Freedom City?

How about Lobbyville, after those whom our gummint officials really represent?   

Ajit Pai would certainly love it.

[Henry]

I'd say St. Louis over Kansas City simply because it is on the Mississippi River, the dividing line between East and West.

[AlexandriaVA]

How would you name a new capital? Americana? Americanopolis? Freedom City?

Effectively what Brazil did, both by moving the capital to a custom-built city off its east coast (previous Rio) and with its name (Brasilia).

[hbelkins]

If I had to move it somewhere central, I'd probably build an entirely new city so that there wouldn't be the problem of trying to graft all sorts of ugly security measures onto existing public spaces.

An entirely new capital city would almost certainly be a "company town". That would aggravate one of the more unattractive features of our existing capital.

Disagree. The capital should be just that -- the seat of government. There should be nothing but government offices there. The government should own all the land and there should be no residents or local government. That's what DC was originally meant to be, as I understand it.

In terms of spreading the offices out, everything doesn't need to be in the capital city. Annapolis is a prime example. The capitol is there, but many of the state offices are in Baltimore. When I went to the AASHTO Subcommittee on Transportation Communications conference there a couple of years ago, most of the SHA folks were out of Baltimore.

[kkt]

There would have been a reasonable case for moving the capital 100 years ago.  These days travel is so easy that there's no way it out outweigh the costs of moving.