Moving US capital

[Rothman]

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.

Where do they eat and sleep?

[Rothman]

Actually, come to think if it, the Eastern Market was part of DC's original L'Enfant plan, so the idea that only offices were supposed to be there is false.  The Eastern Market was supposed to be the commercial hub of the Capital.

[kkt]

Actually, come to think if it, the Eastern Market was part of DC's original L'Enfant plan, so the idea that only offices were supposed to be there is false.  The Eastern Market was supposed to be the commercial hub of the Capital.

Yes, and the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington DC was a town back to colonial days.

[1995hoo]

Actually, come to think if it, the Eastern Market was part of DC's original L'Enfant plan, so the idea that only offices were supposed to be there is false.  The Eastern Market was supposed to be the commercial hub of the Capital.

Yes, and the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington DC was a town back to colonial days.

The District of Columbia has, at various times, contained at least three separate municipalities: Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria. Alexandria was returned to Virginia and Georgetown was later (1871) merged into Washington.

From a practical standpoint, of course, even if a "new US capital city" were to be a "company town," there would still have to be businesses not directly involved in the business of government, such as grocery stores (to give the most obvious example), because the government's employees would still have to live there.

[kkt]

And pricey restaurants for lobbyists to take legislators to lunch in

[vdeane]

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.

Teleconferences could solve that issue.  That's how a LOT of statewide business is done in New York.  I've even been in ones where other people in the same building joined that way rather than in person.

[DTComposer]

none of which should be within range of a nuke (read:  not on either coast).

While certain countries with ambitions towards being a nuclear power may not yet have the capability of reaching beyond the coasts, the established powers (Russia et al) can certainly reach anywhere in the U.S., and the others soon will be able to as well.

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.

As mentioned above, it works fine in other countries, and in other states within this country (as just another example, California's Supreme Court meets in San Francisco, not Sacramento). Just because it wasn't what you did doesn't mean it can't be done.

You talk of collaboration - that's not happening now. I think there's something to the idea of spreading our Congress out for the majority of the year. Let them work full-time in their home districts, making them more accessible to their constituents (and less accessible to the lobbying machines) then they could meet monthly for three to four days in regional "pods" that move around (and teleconference with the other "pods" from there), then once a year they could convene nationally for two weeks in another rotating location.

So for example, there could be five pods of 9 to 11 states each, each currently having between 60 and 75 million people (for this example geography is more important than population, but it's nice that they're not too horribly skewed). The West pod would include Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho and Montana. The 11 monthly meetings could rotate between each state (maybe one each in Northern and Southern California).

The annual national meeting location would rotate as well. Maybe it sounds daunting to convene the entire congress (plus their staff) in a different location each year, but would it be any more logistically difficult than the Super Bowl? If all 535 members participate, maybe they even all bring a spouse and two kids, and they each bring 20 staff members. That's 12,840 people. Each Super Bowl estimates at least 100,000 people come into a town each year.

As it is, most if not all Federal agencies maintain a plethora of regional offices in addition to their headquarters, so the government is already well dispersed. You could still maintain Washington as the nominal capital city, so some agency headquarters could remain along with the national monuments, museums, etc.

Just spitballin'...

[oscar]

As mentioned above, it works fine in other countries, and in other states within this country (as just another example, California's Supreme Court meets in San Francisco, not Sacramento).

The state supreme court also hears cases in Sacramento and Los Angeles. 

In Alaska, the state Supreme Court as well as many of the smaller state agencies are based in Anchorage rather than the capital city of Juneau.

[AlexandriaVA]

As it is, most if not all Federal agencies maintain a plethora of regional offices in addition to their headquarters, so the government is already well dispersed. You could still maintain Washington as the nominal capital city, so some agency headquarters could remain along with the national monuments, museums, etc.

Again, most federal employees are outside of the DC metropolitan area. How much lower than 15% do you want to go?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/where-are-most-federal-employees-not-in-washington/2011/09/11/gIQAeKEhMK_blog.html?utm_term=.7ab88a6ce5a8

Many Americans – and the lawmakers who represent them – don't realize that about 85 percent of federal employees live and work well beyond Washington, with many of them located in tiny counties where the federal government is the dominant employer.

[hbelkins]

From a practical standpoint, of course, even if a "new US capital city" were to be a "company town," there would still have to be businesses not directly involved in the business of government, such as grocery stores (to give the most obvious example), because the government's employees would still have to live there.

No. The employees would live in the surrounding non-capital district, which is where the businesses would be. That would eliminate this "taxation without representation" crap that goes on in DC now. People choose to live in DC, knowing it has no congressional representation. If they want a congressman, they should move to Virginia or Maryland.

[1995hoo]

Sounds kind of like a medieval walled city! I guess, from a "security"  standpoint, maybe that makes sense. Sometimes in DC it feels like the government views the public as a big nuisance they'd like to sweep out of the city.

I agree 100% with your comments about people moving to DC knowing it has no representation.

[jeffandnicole]

But you would also have immediate employee needs that would all need to be government run, from cafeterias to medical treatment facilities.  I guess you could do without gas stations, although depending on the size of the city they would be someone important I would think.

There's also electrical needs, internet, television, gas, oil, etc.  All those companies will need to be located outside the city, with the necessary hookups within the city. 

[Rothman]

You could also just give DC representation, given how its population is larger than the populations of Vermont and Wyoming.

[vdeane]

Sounds kind of like a medieval walled city! I guess, from a "security"  standpoint, maybe that makes sense. Sometimes in DC it feels like the government views the public as a big nuisance they'd like to sweep out of the city.

I agree 100% with your comments about people moving to DC knowing it has no representation.

That was pretty much the idea.  Philadelphia/Pennsylvania police refused to get protesters away from Congress so Congress decided they wanted a capital city that they controlled.

[jwolfer]

You could also just give DC representation, given how its population is larger than the populations of Vermont and Wyoming.

The District of Colombia was supposed to not be a part of any state.

It could be ceded back to Maryland like the part south of the Potomac was ceded back to Virginia.

Z981

[AlexandriaVA]

You could also just give DC representation, given how its population is larger than the populations of Vermont and Wyoming.

The District of Colombia was supposed to not be a part of any state.

It could be ceded back to Maryland like the part south of the Potomac was ceded back to Virginia.

Z981

You can give DC representation without giving it statehood. A similar fix was done with the 23rd Amendment, which gave DC electoral votes.

I still have never heard a reasonable answer to the question, however, why it is justified to tax DC residents with federal taxes while denying DC residents any say in those taxes. If you're really hell-bent on denying representation in Congress, then presumably you'd support federal tax waivers to DC residents?

[kkt]

Especially since there were established communities already in DC before DC was ceded from Maryland.

[oscar]

You can give DC representation without giving it statehood. A similar fix was done with the 23rd Amendment, which gave DC electoral votes.

A later proposed constitutional amendment, that would've given DC full representation in Congress, failed by a wide margin.

The argument is that such a constitutional amendment would be needed to confer full Congressional representation unless D.C. became (part of) a state; that giving D.C. statehood (except perhaps as part of Maryland) would suck for various reasons; and anyway, D.C. residents who moved there from elsewhere did so by choice, and even D.C. natives are within what is for most people long walking distance from Maryland and/or Virginia, so any unfairness to them is not a serious wrong.

Moving the capital city elsewhere would eliminate that headache, though it could also turn D.C. economically into a smoldering crater.

[jwolfer]

You could also just give DC representation, given how its population is larger than the populations of Vermont and Wyoming.

The District of Colombia was supposed to not be a part of any state.

It could be ceded back to Maryland like the part south of the Potomac was ceded back to Virginia.

Z981

You can give DC representation without giving it statehood. A similar fix was done with the 23rd Amendment, which gave DC electoral votes.

I still have never heard a reasonable answer to the question, however, why it is justified to tax DC residents with federal taxes while denying DC residents any say in those taxes. If you're really hell-bent on denying representation in Congress, then presumably you'd support federal tax waivers to DC residents?

If they have representation in Congress it's a de facto state. They would have to apply for statehood. And given the the likely full Democrat delegation Republicans would not support it. ( Same reason Democrats would not support splitting states that have have Democrat urban areas and Republican rural regions.) 

I see your point about paying federal taxes.. make it like Puerto Rico.

If DC residents did not pay federal taxes there would be far less people living in suburbs in MD, VA and even WV and PA. The District of Colombia would have well over 1 million people

Z981

[kkt]

I'm not sure there would be space for 1 million people to live in DC.  It's got a fairly low height limit.  It would raise the demand for real estate within DC for sure, though.

[AlexandriaVA]

I'm not sure there would be space for 1 million people to live in DC.  It's got a fairly low height limit.  It would raise the demand for real estate within DC for sure, though.

Much of DC is zoned for single-family homes, R-1 on the map (https://ggwash.org/images/posts/201202-081108.jpg). With the stroke of a pen, DC could drastically raise its housing capacity without even coming close to the height limit. For historical reference, the maximum city population was 802K, having swelled during WWII.

To put it another way, the population of DC is over 681K and the overwhelming majority of the city doesn't even come close to the height limit.

[english si]

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).

The UK too, though there's no constitution to say that London is the capital, just that London is considered the capital despite the seats of state power always having been just outside.

I'm not sure there would be space for 1 million people to live in DC.  It's got a fairly low height limit.

Visit Paris! 5 times denser than DC and mostly mid-rise 5-7 storey buildings.

Tall buildings don't give too much of a boost. Interestingly Paris' high-rise residential 13th arrondissement has 62k/sq mi, compared with 55k/sq mi for the whole city (which includes non-residential areas). The 19th arrondissement has 66k/sq mi despite no high rise.

[Jardine]

I can't think of a single drawback to the US capital being moved to Bouvet Island.

[Roadgeekteen]

Maybe a winter capital in Florida or Hawaii?

[kkt]

Maybe a winter capital in Florida or Hawaii?

Puerto Rico