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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I daresay you will find preciously few people who would disagree that 75% white (or any race) is heavily white. When the District was 70%+ AA it was accepted as heavily AA.

Likewise Baltimore is 65% AA and is considered a heavily black city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I daresay you will find preciously few people who would disagree that 75% white (or any race) is heavily white. When the District was 70%+ AA it was accepted as heavily AA.

Likewise Baltimore is 65% AA and is considered a heavily black city.

In 1920, when DC was 75% white, the US as a whole was 90% white.

In 1970, when DC was 71% black, the US as a whole was 10% black.

Context matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

LOL. Did you really say that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I daresay you will find preciously few people who would disagree that 75% white (or any race) is heavily white. When the District was 70%+ AA it was accepted as heavily AA.

Likewise Baltimore is 65% AA and is considered a heavily black city.

In 1920, when DC was 75% white, the US as a whole was 90% white.

In 1970, when DC was 71% black, the US as a whole was 10% black.

Context matters.

Not really. DC was heavily white then became heavily black and is now heading to a status where there is no majority (yet). You're just upset that DC was once heavily white and will soon lose the AA majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you suggesting that the reasons of the founding fathers remain valid? That giving DC residents Congressional representation would give them too much power?

That seems like a good reason to me. I like the idea of the nation's capital being located in a neutral territory. Why should it be a state? Do we need another state? If we really want to make it a state, wouldn't it make the most sense just to annex it back to Maryland, which donated the land in the first place?

+100

You are actually only 1 person. One person one vote. Unless you are from DC.

The problem is Maryland does not want retrocession. So you would need a constitutional amendment to do it (and you would also need to repeal the 23rd amendment). What is wrong with simply treating DC residents as Maryland residents for the purpose of Congressional Representation?

MD resident here, if DC residents are being treated as MD residents then DC needs to be absorbed back into MD. I see no reason why MD gave up its land for a capital only for DCa to become a state. If DC becomes a state, then they need to pay MD for all the years of free land it used or give the state of MD (specifically MoCo some of its future tax earnings).

[Anonymous]

The Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783.

Same reasons still apply.

[Anonymous]

Given the abysmal track record of incompetent and corrupt local government I’d say DC is incapable of governing itself as a state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I daresay you will find preciously few people who would disagree that 75% white (or any race) is heavily white. When the District was 70%+ AA it was accepted as heavily AA.

Likewise Baltimore is 65% AA and is considered a heavily black city.

+1.

Previous PP is a bit cuckoo.

Perhaps she can now research a bit why those whites left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you suggesting that the reasons of the founding fathers remain valid? That giving DC residents Congressional representation would give them too much power?

That seems like a good reason to me. I like the idea of the nation's capital being located in a neutral territory. Why should it be a state? Do we need another state? If we really want to make it a state, wouldn't it make the most sense just to annex it back to Maryland, which donated the land in the first place?

Please pay attention. The federal enclave would be pulled out as the neutral territory. DC has more population than two states. Why don’t they just absorb those stars into adjacent ones? The argument against statehood just let republicans go on the record with their racism and stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given the abysmal track record of incompetent and corrupt local government I’d say DC is incapable of governing itself as a state.

And yet Illinois, whose 32nd, 36th, 39th and 40th Governors all went to jail, gets to be a state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the abysmal track record of incompetent and corrupt local government I’d say DC is incapable of governing itself as a state.

And yet Illinois, whose 32nd, 36th, 39th and 40th Governors all went to jail, gets to be a state.

The state of Illinois never had Congress to step in for a federal takeover. So, no DC gov't is too dysfunctional at the local level so it definitely coudnt functional on a national level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the abysmal track record of incompetent and corrupt local government I’d say DC is incapable of governing itself as a state.

And yet Illinois, whose 32nd, 36th, 39th and 40th Governors all went to jail, gets to be a state.

The state of Illinois never had Congress to step in for a federal takeover. So, no DC gov't is too dysfunctional at the local level so it definitely coudnt functional on a national level.

Because it's not legally possible.

What the state of Illinois has had, though, is no budget for fiscal year 2016, no budget for fiscal year 2017, and no budget for part of fiscal year 2018. Illinois is clearly incapable of governing itself as a state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the abysmal track record of incompetent and corrupt local government I’d say DC is incapable of governing itself as a state.

And yet Illinois, whose 32nd, 36th, 39th and 40th Governors all went to jail, gets to be a state.

The state of Illinois never had Congress to step in for a federal takeover. So, no DC gov't is too dysfunctional at the local level so it definitely coudnt functional on a national level.

Because it's not legally possible.

What the state of Illinois has had, though, is no budget for fiscal year 2016, no budget for fiscal year 2017, and no budget for part of fiscal year 2018. Illinois is clearly incapable of governing itself as a state.

Whether Illinois is functional at the state level or not, it's already a state and thus has no bearing on DC. DC needs to be ceded back to the state of MD if its residents want proper representation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the abysmal track record of incompetent and corrupt local government I’d say DC is incapable of governing itself as a state.

And yet Illinois, whose 32nd, 36th, 39th and 40th Governors all went to jail, gets to be a state.

The state of Illinois never had Congress to step in for a federal takeover. So, no DC gov't is too dysfunctional at the local level so it definitely coudnt functional on a national level.

Because it's not legally possible.

What the state of Illinois has had, though, is no budget for fiscal year 2016, no budget for fiscal year 2017, and no budget for part of fiscal year 2018. Illinois is clearly incapable of governing itself as a state.

What is legally possible is DC giving back its land to the state of MD, the courts need to stick to the legal agreement which was put into place. There is no reason to have a 51st state, even if the population of DC rivals that of two states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the abysmal track record of incompetent and corrupt local government I’d say DC is incapable of governing itself as a state.

And yet Illinois, whose 32nd, 36th, 39th and 40th Governors all went to jail, gets to be a state.

The state of Illinois never had Congress to step in for a federal takeover. So, no DC gov't is too dysfunctional at the local level so it definitely coudnt functional on a national level.

Because it's not legally possible.

What the state of Illinois has had, though, is no budget for fiscal year 2016, no budget for fiscal year 2017, and no budget for part of fiscal year 2018. Illinois is clearly incapable of governing itself as a state.

What is legally possible is DC giving back its land to the state of MD, the courts need to stick to the legal agreement which was put into place. There is no reason to have a 51st state, even if the population of DC rivals that of two states.

A: DC should be a state.
B: Nuh uh, DC is too dysfunctional to be a state.
C: Illinois is a state and it's at least as dysfunctional.
D: DC shouldn't be a state because it should go back to Maryland.

I'm starting to think that ALL of these DC-shouldn't-be-a-state-because arguments really boil down to "Because they would vote the wrong way."