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.
Well a new city located in Maryland would bring with it a half million or so new tax payers, so its not like Maryland has to take on any real burden- although they would oppose it anyway (as you said, this is dreaming). Still, it would increase the population of Maryland. With that comes an increase in tax revenue and more clout in Congress.
Saying you switch from being beholden to Congress to being beholden to Annapolis is most inaccurate. As it stands now, you have NO voice in Congress and NO vote. Nothing, unless Norton really does anything, which she does not as she cannot.
With Annapolis as your capital, you would have State Representatives- both in the House of Delegates and the Senate- people you voted for. You would also vote for Governor as well as country reps. So no, quite the opposite- Annapolis would be beholden to YOU. That is how democracy works, but not in DC.
You would also have other state benefits such as preferred access to the state universitites (although I will die before I send Moth Jr there).
you would lose in state tuition anywhere in the US
With Annapolis as your capital, you would have State Representatives- both in the House of Delegates and the Senate- people you voted for. You would also vote for Governor as well as country reps. So no, quite the opposite- Annapolis would be beholden to YOU. That is how democracy works, but not in DC.
I guess I'm just a sucker for keeping things at the local level. The entire DC council has a vested interest in any decisions made with respect to the District--they all live here, after all. But an elected state representative is but one (or two) of many with a say in the state's affairs. Our elected representatives may, for instance, support needle exchange programs in the District, but the majority of the state assembly may not.
I'm not saying the system we have now is perfect, but I'm not convinced that retrocession to Maryland would leave District residents in any better shape than they are now, and our power to enact changes at the local level would be diminished. Ultimately, this is as you note a purely academic argument. Aside from the fact that the popular will does not exist for such a move, Baltimore would have a fit if 600,000 new residents entered the state's voter rolls and weren't residents of the Baltimore area.
I guess I'm just a sucker for keeping things at the local level. The entire DC council has a vested interest in any decisions made with respect to the District--they all live here, after all. But an elected state representative is but one (or two) of many with a say in the state's affairs. Our elected representatives may, for instance, support needle exchange programs in the District, but the majority of the state assembly may not.
I'm not saying the system we have now is perfect, but I'm not convinced that retrocession to Maryland would leave District residents in any better shape than they are now, and our power to enact changes at the local level would be diminished. Ultimately, this is as you note a purely academic argument. Aside from the fact that the popular will does not exist for such a move, Baltimore would have a fit if 600,000 new residents entered the state's voter rolls and weren't residents of the Baltimore area.
You would still have the DC Council as well as the Mayor. Baltimore, Rockville, etc all have city councils as well as mayors. So things would remain at the local level except where you needed the State or Feds for something and finally you would real access. You could even make DC its own county as well.
As for Baltimore, I suspect both sets of voters see things the same way, more or less, so I cannot fathom them having any rational objection. The State of Maryland as a whole, of course, would object as they would not want DC's crime. Of course that is predicated on conveniently forgetting that Western and Eastern Avenues are not the Berlin Wall. Thus it would raise Maryland's crime stats in total but the percentage would be nullified by the increase in population.
Maryland is a Democratic State. You are simply absorbing 600,000 (mostly) more Democrats.
Your opinion is yours and quite valid of course. I am just puzzled that more power and more freedom do not appeal to you. Its unfair the DC has no say in Congress. Yet they are never going to create a 51st [City] State there. Retrocession seems to be the best option.
Your opinion is yours and quite valid of course. I am just puzzled that more power and more freedom do not appeal to you.
I'll tell you what appeals to me: the proposal that was floated--probably non-seriously--that so long as DC residents have no voting representation in Congress, they pay no income tax. What I wonder is, how many residents of states would vote for the same deal? I'm guessing quite a few.
I'll tell you what appeals to me: the proposal that was floated--probably non-seriously--that so long as DC residents have no voting representation in Congress, they pay no income tax. What I wonder is, how many residents of states would vote for the same deal? I'm guessing quite a few.
That is not going to happen. And as good as that sounds for a minute or so, it would be a disaster. Firstly, you would be surrenduring even more leverage, the little that you have, as you would literally become a ward of the Feds. Secondly, populating a city with people who pay nothing yet expect everything strikes me as a rather scary notion. Finally, there is no way DC could survive on its local taxes.
Gimmicks are just that. DC needs to be normal. Make it normal. Absorb it into its neighbor who just happens to be culturally and politically similiar. And there is legal precedent- the retrocession of the aforementioned Virginia sections.
I understand that--that's why I noted it was a non-serious suggestion. But in a "dream" scenario, I think it's a trade-off that a lot of people would seriously consider.
And, for the record, the idea would be only to eliminate federal income taxes. The local taxes would, of course, remain in place.
I understand that--that's why I noted it was a non-serious suggestion. But in a "dream" scenario, I think it's a trade-off that a lot of people would seriously consider.
And, for the record, the idea would be only to eliminate federal income taxes. The local taxes would, of course, remain in place.
Yea but DC could not survive on just those. In any case, we are just dreaming.
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.
