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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been a District resident for the majority of my life and I'm opposed to statehood. We're a city - a populated one - but share none of the characteristics of a state. No other city has statehood. Plus I've been waiting a lifetime for our local elected leaders to prove they are worthy of the responsibility of statehood and not continue our sad legacy of self-serving corruption. I care about job creation, good schools, and safe streets, and having statehood won't measurably improve those things. Given my low confidence in our Congress, I'm not sure giving leader-for-life EHN will make much of a difference for our local interests.

DC has its own economic engine outside of the federal government. It also has a budget, a budget surplus, a rainy day fund and a bond rating that are the envy of every jurisdiction in the country. If you have lived here the majority of your life, then you haven't been paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone on the West Coast, my first thought is that there's a lot of good stuff that DC gets that the rest of the country doesn't get. For example, you have the Smithsonian museums that are way better than anything we have in the rest of the country. You also get paid WAY more for frankly less work than the rest of the country gets.

I'd be fine if they distribute the government departments/functions throughout cities in the rest of the country, distribute the museums and any other things like that that are supposed to be national facilities and services, and then let the surrounding states absorb the DC properties and its residents.

People in DC may get paid more, that is, you know, how capitalism works. It is also a high cost of living area. Not as high as NY or SF, but higher than almost anywhere else in the US.

The Smithsonian is Federal and open to ALL visitors free of charge, whether they are a US taxpayer or not.

Distributing departments across the country would actually make the federal government less effective. As it is, more than 90% of federal workers are outside of DC. But you have to be able to have leadership and senior staff etc in a location where it makes sense to work with the WH and the Capitol on policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone on the West Coast, my first thought is that there's a lot of good stuff that DC gets that the rest of the country doesn't get. For example, you have the Smithsonian museums that are way better than anything we have in the rest of the country. You also get paid WAY more for frankly less work than the rest of the country gets.

I'd be fine if they distribute the government departments/functions throughout cities in the rest of the country, distribute the museums and any other things like that that are supposed to be national facilities and services, and then let the surrounding states absorb the DC properties and its residents.

People in DC may get paid more, that is, you know, how capitalism works. It is also a high cost of living area. Not as high as NY or SF, but higher than almost anywhere else in the US.

The Smithsonian is Federal and open to ALL visitors free of charge, whether they are a US taxpayer or not.

Distributing departments across the country would actually make the federal government less effective. As it is, more than 90% of federal workers are outside of DC. But you have to be able to have leadership and senior staff etc in a location where it makes sense to work with the WH and the Capitol on policy.

I don't think any of your points are actual arguments.

People in DC being paid more, when that money is generally coming from taxpayer funds, is not a good thing. And yes, I can see that there might be more inefficiencies if the departments are distributed, but that would be balanced by the fact that the costs would be so much lower. (I don't think you have any idea how well paid "feds" are for what they do.) It would be a wash in the end, plus there would be well paying, stable jobs available in other parts of the country too, which benefits other cities and regions.

As for the museums, the US is a BIG country. Here on the West Coast, it's just not possible to go to DC to visit some museums. So we don't, and our kids miss out. The cost of entry might be free but the cross-country flights and accommodations certainly aren't. If they were available throughout the US like they should be then more people would have a chance to visit some museums. There could also be benefits for tourism, with more draws for other parts of the country and not everything centered in one city.

The fact is that if DC has a lot of benefits. It's a special city with special pros & cons. If they want to remove a con and essentially get all the benefits of a regular state then they need to give up their pros too. Nobody reasonable could argue with that. And in the meantime, nobody is forcing you to stay there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone on the West Coast, my first thought is that there's a lot of good stuff that DC gets that the rest of the country doesn't get. For example, you have the Smithsonian museums that are way better than anything we have in the rest of the country. You also get paid WAY more for frankly less work than the rest of the country gets.

I'd be fine if they distribute the government departments/functions throughout cities in the rest of the country, distribute the museums and any other things like that that are supposed to be national facilities and services, and then let the surrounding states absorb the DC properties and its residents.

People in DC may get paid more, that is, you know, how capitalism works. It is also a high cost of living area. Not as high as NY or SF, but higher than almost anywhere else in the US.

The Smithsonian is Federal and open to ALL visitors free of charge, whether they are a US taxpayer or not.

Distributing departments across the country would actually make the federal government less effective. As it is, more than 90% of federal workers are outside of DC. But you have to be able to have leadership and senior staff etc in a location where it makes sense to work with the WH and the Capitol on policy.

I don't think any of your points are actual arguments.

People in DC being paid more, when that money is generally coming from taxpayer funds, is not a good thing. And yes, I can see that there might be more inefficiencies if the departments are distributed, but that would be balanced by the fact that the costs would be so much lower. (I don't think you have any idea how well paid "feds" are for what they do.) It would be a wash in the end, plus there would be well paying, stable jobs available in other parts of the country too, which benefits other cities and regions.

As for the museums, the US is a BIG country. Here on the West Coast, it's just not possible to go to DC to visit some museums. So we don't, and our kids miss out. The cost of entry might be free but the cross-country flights and accommodations certainly aren't. If they were available throughout the US like they should be then more people would have a chance to visit some museums. There could also be benefits for tourism, with more draws for other parts of the country and not everything centered in one city.

The fact is that if DC has a lot of benefits. It's a special city with special pros & cons. If they want to remove a con and essentially get all the benefits of a regular state then they need to give up their pros too. Nobody reasonable could argue with that. And in the meantime, nobody is forcing you to stay there.

You don't seem to making any points, yourself. Are you suggesting that the many law firms, for-profit corporations,private universities, and sundry are "generally coming from taxpayer funds?" Where is your evidence for that? Also, a large number of federal agencies are actually headquartered in Virginia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_agencies_in_Northern_Virginia) or Maryland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_installations_in_Maryland). Have you even been to DC Actually, I think you admitted you have not - which makes you kind of pathetic to spend your time on a DC parenting blog. There are federal agencies all over the country - including California. You seem to also have VERY little understanding of how little federal employees actually make, compared to what they would make in the private sector. You have not identified ANY benefits to DC, other than your false belief that people in DC make more "for what they do" that wouldn't make in California or Seattle or any other high cost of living area and the Smithsonian. I understand that you have deep-seeded racial issues -certainly nobody reasonable reading your posts would argue with that. But since you have indicated no express pros about living in DC that should deprive its residents of their democracy, I am sure that most DC residents would gladly give up free admission to the zoo in exchange for taxation with representation. Would that satisfy you, Master?

[Anonymous]

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 the people in each of those cities already have congressional representation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it is unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with white-black or rich-poor. It was a mismanaged decision made back in 1790. The powers that be could have prevented this by paying the families that resided on the District land to move off the land so they would have voting rights, but they didn't. So, now we have this tragic turmoil. No matter how much people scream, cry, curse, pray, raise hell, or whatever, Washington DC cannot become a state. It has NOTHING to do with Republican-Democrat, seats, power, whatever. It is unconstitutional and cannot be changed. If a President comes along and if Congress were to form enough support to make DC a state, it would be overturned by the United States Supreme Court as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What shocks me is the number of elected leaders who do not know the Constitution, or if they do know it, they disregard it (even though they took an oath to protect said Constitution).

I personally find it disgraceful that there are Americans living in the District of Columbia who cannot vote. BUT, what I find just as distasteful is that there are two easy viable ways to resolve this issue, but Mayor Bowser, Representative Holmes, and the citizens reject both options. Option #1 is too move out of DC, while option #2 is to have that part of DC returned to Maryland. If the land is returned to Maryland, Mayor Bowser could still form a city like government exactly like Falls Church City, Baltimore, and many other places. They would be a part of Maryland with Maryland benefits, but could be there own separate local city limit government.

If you want to be pedantic, there's clearly nothing in the constitution that says that you can't carve out a portion of DC to create a new state. Presumably the only reason you're dismissing that option is because you don't want to give DC voters two senate seats.

+1

The size of DC has already changed. It used to contain two counties: Washington and Alexandria. The county of Alexandria was returned to Virginia in 1846. (Which is why we call it Washington, DC. There used to be an Alexandria, DC.) There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a minimum size for the federal district; it would be possible to make a smaller federal district that encompassed just the central federal buildings and make the rest of the territory a state.

And your easy solutions are not easy. Moving is difficult for many people, and people shouldn't have to move to vote, and there's not enough housing in the surrounding counties to absorb 700,000 new residents. And Maryland doesn't want DC, so you can't just return it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than not liking the way DC residents might vote? What could be the arguments against?

The city is already extremely over-represented in Congress, the vast majority of members of which live here for months on end.

If voting rights was really the issue, anyone living in DC has the option, by a $4.00 Metro ride, to move to MD or VA. I've lived in all three (DC, VA and MD) -- not a big deal -- and voting rights was never a consideration. Red herring.

Right - cause I can call Moscow Mitch to assist with my veterans claims issues. Sorry that you take civics so lightly, guessing it’s your white male privilege?

Leaving aside your odd race and gender assumptions, you think DC should get two senators and a representative to take care of your veteran’s claim issues? Each senate office costs about $4 million, so figure $10 million total (4+4+2). Why don’t we just send you a bigger check so we can all save on taxes?

Not so odd, actually.

Why does Vermont get two senators and congressman? As you obviously don’t know (or care), half of the children in DC live in poverty. You can pretend that this not a consequence or lack of congressional representative, but assuming you have a conscience, but do you think Moscow Mitch devotes two seconds of his day thinking about them. His children who incidentally are DC statehood activists, think he was a shitty parent to them.

The per capita GDP of DC ($160k) is (much) more than twice that of the wealthiest US state (Massachusetts, by per capita GDP, $60k) and 4x higher than your example of Vermont and of Mitch’s Kentucky (each at $40k). No doubt your heart is in the right place, but the facts are against you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than not liking the way DC residents might vote? What could be the arguments against?

The city is already extremely over-represented in Congress, the vast majority of members of which live here for months on end.

If voting rights was really the issue, anyone living in DC has the option, by a $4.00 Metro ride, to move to MD or VA. I've lived in all three (DC, VA and MD) -- not a big deal -- and voting rights was never a consideration. Red herring.

Right - cause I can call Moscow Mitch to assist with my veterans claims issues. Sorry that you take civics so lightly, guessing it’s your white male privilege?

Leaving aside your odd race and gender assumptions, you think DC should get two senators and a representative to take care of your veteran’s claim issues? Each senate office costs about $4 million, so figure $10 million total (4+4+2). Why don’t we just send you a bigger check so we can all save on taxes?

Not so odd, actually.

Why does Vermont get two senators and congressman? As you obviously don’t know (or care), half of the children in DC live in poverty. You can pretend that this not a consequence or lack of congressional representative, but assuming you have a conscience, but do you think Moscow Mitch devotes two seconds of his day thinking about them. His children who incidentally are DC statehood activists, think he was a shitty parent to them.

The per capita GDP of DC ($160k) is (much) more than twice that of the wealthiest US state (Massachusetts, by per capita GDP, $60k) and 4x higher than your example of Vermont and of Mitch’s Kentucky (each at $40k). No doubt your heart is in the right place, but the facts are against you.

No, actually the CHILD poverty rates are facts that support the need for statehood. What a two, white-male household with no kids in Dupont makes does not negate the reality of poverty for many children in DC. But they are largely not white, so, I get that for you they are non-entities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone on the West Coast, my first thought is that there's a lot of good stuff that DC gets that the rest of the country doesn't get. For example, you have the Smithsonian museums that are way better than anything we have in the rest of the country. You also get paid WAY more for frankly less work than the rest of the country gets.

I'd be fine if they distribute the government departments/functions throughout cities in the rest of the country, distribute the museums and any other things like that that are supposed to be national facilities and services, and then let the surrounding states absorb the DC properties and its residents.

People in DC may get paid more, that is, you know, how capitalism works. It is also a high cost of living area. Not as high as NY or SF, but higher than almost anywhere else in the US.

The Smithsonian is Federal and open to ALL visitors free of charge, whether they are a US taxpayer or not.

Distributing departments across the country would actually make the federal government less effective. As it is, more than 90% of federal workers are outside of DC. But you have to be able to have leadership and senior staff etc in a location where it makes sense to work with the WH and the Capitol on policy.

I don't think any of your points are actual arguments.

People in DC being paid more, when that money is generally coming from taxpayer funds, is not a good thing. And yes, I can see that there might be more inefficiencies if the departments are distributed, but that would be balanced by the fact that the costs would be so much lower. (I don't think you have any idea how well paid "feds" are for what they do.) It would be a wash in the end, plus there would be well paying, stable jobs available in other parts of the country too, which benefits other cities and regions.

As for the museums, the US is a BIG country. Here on the West Coast, it's just not possible to go to DC to visit some museums. So we don't, and our kids miss out. The cost of entry might be free but the cross-country flights and accommodations certainly aren't. If they were available throughout the US like they should be then more people would have a chance to visit some museums. There could also be benefits for tourism, with more draws for other parts of the country and not everything centered in one city.

The fact is that if DC has a lot of benefits. It's a special city with special pros & cons. If they want to remove a con and essentially get all the benefits of a regular state then they need to give up their pros too. Nobody reasonable could argue with that. And in the meantime, nobody is forcing you to stay there.

How can you possibly think that free museums compensates for lack of representation in the Senate?

[Anonymous]

I have no faith that a voting rep in Congress would be able to improve the local interests of DC or make a measurable impact on the national level. Congress is useless; why would I care if we had a vote there? Could you imagine us having statehood with one of Marion Barry's cronies as our senator?

[Anonymous]

I agree residents should have voting representation in Congress. DC borders should include the White House, the Capitol, the Mall, and all contiguous federal land.

The residential areas should be offered back to Maryland because it is Maryland’s land. MD state government can then either accept or formally reject. If they reject, the residential areas become a new state with a new name.

[Anonymous]

Also if the residential areas form their own state, no more DC appropriations. You’ll need to fund those services on your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree residents should have voting representation in Congress. DC borders should include the White House, the Capitol, the Mall, and all contiguous federal land.

The residential areas should be offered back to Maryland because it is Maryland’s land. MD state government can then either accept or formally reject. If they reject, the residential areas become a new state with a new name.

MD doesn't want us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree residents should have voting representation in Congress. DC borders should include the White House, the Capitol, the Mall, and all contiguous federal land.

The residential areas should be offered back to Maryland because it is Maryland’s land. MD state government can then either accept or formally reject. If they reject, the residential areas become a new state with a new name.

MD doesn't want us.

Them they’ll quickly vote against it. It is their land so they should have the opportunity to accept or reject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also if the residential areas form their own state, no more DC appropriations. You’ll need to fund those services on your own.

Your privilege slip is showing, DC is self-funded via taxes.