Are there any legitimate reasons why someone would oppose DC statehood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

What’s your point? Vermont wouldn’t become a state today. Wyoming actually provides a lot through oil and gas drilling. So even though the amount of residents isn’t high, the tax dollars are.

In fiscal 2018, Wyoming paid $4,930,650 in federal tax revenue. The District of Columbia paid $28,443,717:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state#Fiscal_Year_2018

If we start doing stuff like this, Fairfax County is more qualified to be a state. How about North Virginia?

Fairfax County is already part of a state. This is by far the dumbest argument on here and it’s full of dumb ones. Residents of VA already get Congressional representation. Can anyone really be this dumb?

You might want to read a bit of history regarding the origin of West Virginia. Northern Virginia is politically distinct from the rest of Virginia in a very similar way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps people have missed that Wyoming and Vermont have less residents?

So what.

DC is the 20th largest city in the US. Why should it be a state and not NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Columbus, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Seattle, or Denver?

Because unlike NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, San Francisco, Columbus, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Seattle, or Denver, which are all parts of states and have representation in Congress, DC is not part of a state and does not have representation in Congress.

So, carve out the part with government buildings (specifically the Mall, Capitol, White House,. Let the rest revert back to Maryland. Why should a city get to be a state?

In any case, wouldn't there need to be a consitutional amendment?

It's not a city. It's a district.

And you can't "let the rest revert back to Maryland" if (1) Maryland doesn't want it and (2) DC doesn't want it.

[Anonymous]

^^^
Yup. Good explainer on retrocession here. It won’t work without support in Maryland.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-dc-part-of-maryland-20190923-kghzoivjjvenzhg3fyanghct5u-story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous]

Just give Washington citizens voting representation in Congress. Statehood is too complicated (there are sound constitutional arguments against it), politically challenging and even it statehood came to be, it likely would prove financially costly for Washingtonians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just give Washington citizens voting representation in Congress. Statehood is too complicated (there are sound constitutional arguments against it), politically challenging and even it statehood came to be, it likely would prove financially costly for Washingtonians.

The way you do that is: statehood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just give Washington citizens voting representation in Congress. Statehood is too complicated (there are sound constitutional arguments against it), politically challenging and even it statehood came to be, it likely would prove financially costly for Washingtonians.

The way you do that is: statehood.

You could make a special exception for DC to have congressional representatives but no statehood (no senators, no governors, no elected body beyond the current mayor and city government). This would be a comfortable compromise. I imagine most Americans would get on board with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Racism.

Parking spots. (seriously, that was an issue raised today)

Nah. The district is rapidly gentrifying and will become majority white soon enough.

The district also didn't have statehood when it was heavily white in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just give Washington citizens voting representation in Congress. Statehood is too complicated (there are sound constitutional arguments against it), politically challenging and even it statehood came to be, it likely would prove financially costly for Washingtonians.

The way you do that is: statehood.

You could make a special exception for DC to have congressional representatives but no statehood (no senators, no governors, no elected body beyond the current mayor and city government). This would be a comfortable compromise. I imagine most Americans would get on board with it.

+1 Agree!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racism.

Parking spots. (seriously, that was an issue raised today)

Nah. The district is rapidly gentrifying and will become majority white soon enough.

The district also didn't have statehood when it was heavily white in the past.

When was DC "heavily white"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just give Washington citizens voting representation in Congress. Statehood is too complicated (there are sound constitutional arguments against it), politically challenging and even it statehood came to be, it likely would prove financially costly for Washingtonians.

The way you do that is: statehood.

You could make a special exception for DC to have congressional representatives but no statehood (no senators, no governors, no elected body beyond the current mayor and city government). This would be a comfortable compromise. I imagine most Americans would get on board with it.

+1 Agree!

WHO could do this? And what would be the legal authority for it? Also, the Senate is part of Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just give Washington citizens voting representation in Congress. Statehood is too complicated (there are sound constitutional arguments against it), politically challenging and even it statehood came to be, it likely would prove financially costly for Washingtonians.

The way you do that is: statehood.

You could make a special exception for DC to have congressional representatives but no statehood (no senators, no governors, no elected body beyond the current mayor and city government). This would be a comfortable compromise. I imagine most Americans would get on board with it.

+1 Agree!

Why would Rs support that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It just seems silly to let a small-ish city become a state with equal power to Texas, Ca, FL, etc.

Yes there are a couple other small population states, but that doesn’t fix the logic.

You'll have to explain the logic. Wyoming and Vermont have "equal power" to FL, CA, TX, etc. They both have fewer people than DC.

Please explain the difference, with something more compelling that, "It's just a small city!!" That's irrelevant. Representation is determined by population, nothing more. Neither trees nor acres get a vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just give Washington citizens voting representation in Congress. Statehood is too complicated (there are sound constitutional arguments against it), politically challenging and even it statehood came to be, it likely would prove financially costly for Washingtonians.

The way you do that is: statehood.

You could make a special exception for DC to have congressional representatives but no statehood (no senators, no governors, no elected body beyond the current mayor and city government). This would be a comfortable compromise. I imagine most Americans would get on board with it.

+1 Agree!

Why would Rs support that?

Because giving people in DC voting representation in Congress is the right thing to do, and they're people of principle?

(I wish that were true.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racism.

Parking spots. (seriously, that was an issue raised today)

Nah. The district is rapidly gentrifying and will become majority white soon enough.

The district also didn't have statehood when it was heavily white in the past.

When was DC "heavily white"?

Before 1960.
https://matthewbgilmore.wordpress.com/district-of-columbia-population-history/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racism.

Parking spots. (seriously, that was an issue raised today)

Nah. The district is rapidly gentrifying and will become majority white soon enough.

The district also didn't have statehood when it was heavily white in the past.

When was DC "heavily white"?

Before 1960.
https://matthewbgilmore.wordpress.com/district-of-columbia-population-history/

I guess it depends on what you mean by "heavily". Even at peak whiteness in 1920, the population of DC was only 75% white. There has always been a substantial black population in DC.