Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,813,296 times
Reputation: 14660
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Calif
Traditionally, capitals were designed to be away from larger cities so they could function without the bribery and corruption that their influence might bring. This is why in many states we see that the largest city is not always the capital. I believe it has something to do with that.
This is why I always thought Worcester would make a much better capital for Massachusetts. Everything seems to orbit around Boston there.
The idea that towns in the middle of nowhere should be a stat's capital was from Thomas Jefferson, so big city folks wouldn't out-represent farmers/small town (Agrarian/Jeffersonian politics).
That was the most idiotic idea to ever be implemented.
At least in Michigan, Detroit was the capitol. Now Detroit, the by-far largest city in Michigan, is forced to compete and be compared with small towns such as Grand Rapids for capital investment from the state.
My problem isnt the geographical location of the capital, but more of the pro-rural, anti-urban attitudes that tends to dominate state policy in Montgomery. Birmingham has historically been shortchanged when it comes to state funding for transportation projects, job creation, etc, etc.
Same thing in Michigan.
While Detroit has slowly imploded over the last fifty years, Michigan has done absolutely NOTHING (nada, zip, zilch) to stop it. If anything, it accelerated Detroit's decline with its pro-suburban policies, between the lack of limits on sprawl, the lifting of the residency requirements, the lack of serious mass transit investment (which the stat knew would mostly hurt Detroit) and the most complicated annexation laws of any state in America.
Now all of a sudden, when Detroit is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, the state of Michigan takes away my voting rights and tells me I should accept fewer services and higher taxes so their bond ratings won't go down (because for some reason they've sudddenly realized as Detroit goes so does the state).
In Wyoming, Casper would be a decent choice because of better location (Cheyenne is just way down there in the southeastern corner, while Casper is pretty centrally located and accessible).
Just a few select states that would benefit from a different state capital IMO - whether for geographic, demographic reasons, etc.
Florida - Orlando
Kentucky - Lexington
Michigan - Ann Arbor or Midland
Missouri -- Columbia South Carolina - Charleston
Not really sure how SC would benefit from Charleston being the capital again, especially for geographic reasons--it's not central to the state and is too disaster prone, being vulnerable to hurricanes and lying along a major fault line. Columbia makes sense as the capital.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
