WI: Capital Outside of D.C.

Asami

Asami

Banned
As is known, Washington D.C. in the 70s, 80s and early 90s was known for being a horrible place to live -- the murder capital of the United States, crack epidemic, et al. If the situation never recovered and the city continued to decay beyond as it had, would the American government move it's capital anywhere else?
 
Callan

Callan

It take a lot more than a city being a total dump for a government to move their capital away. I'm thinking WMDs or a natural disaster for that to happen.
 

Expat

Are there any examples of other countries moving their capital because the city's unpleasant to live in?

I can't think of any off the top of my head. I can't possibly believe that DC in the late '80s* was worse than London in the Victorian era, which saw pollution, murder, human degradation, and, who could forget, the smell of poop, permeating the daily existence of all residents, high and low.

If nobody in parliament thought to propose that they heard, "Winchester was pretty nice" during a cholera epidemic, well then I think DC's chances are pretty good.


*I was young, but I lived in MD at the time and visited the city frequently. Time is supposed to soften the edges on things and apply a rosy glow, but it's pretty clear in my mind that the city was just much, much, MUCH worse then than now. We may risk losing a lot of character through gentrification, and should work to stop it, but gentrification is better than whatever DC had in 1989, lemme tell ya. And I only visited the nice parts.
 

Lord Grattan

Sakura_F said:
As is known, Washington D.C. in the 70s, 80s and early 90s was known for being a horrible place to live -- the murder capital of the United States, crack epidemic, et al. If the situation never recovered and the city continued to decay beyond as it had, would the American government move it's capital anywhere else?
Click to expand...

Short answer - no.

Long answer - no, moving the federal government elsewhere would be politically impossible and financially cost prohibitive.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

There is also Constitutional mention of a capital district.

Getting NO DC might be possible, the Constitution merely provides for the possibility of such a thing. But once DC has been established, moving the government out (at least officially) would be ... difficult, and I think they could not create a new capital without a constitutional amendment.

A subtle abandonment of DC, where only inaugurations happen at the Capitol, say, and most business is conducted elsewhere is probably possible - but that probably means the various departments are in different cities, and e.g. the house the president lives in (or possibly houses) may well be in different cities than where the Congress meets regularly. And the Supreme Court might well meet someplace totally different.
 

Expat

Daltonia said:
Why? What would be the point in relocating the capital of the most powerful country on Earth to the middle of nowhere?
Click to expand...

Some countries relocate their capital for "political reasons." DC itself is an example, as are Ottawa, Brasilia, and Canberra. And sometimes they relocate to the middle of nowhere, to minimize geographic distance from the farthest points of the country or in some sort of idealistic attempt to remove "local influence" from national affairs (never works.)

But moving it because "the city is terrible," that I don't think we have an example of, but I could easily be wrong. Looking forward to hearing about it if I am.
 

funnyhat

Daltonia said:
Why? What would be the point in relocating the capital of the most powerful country on Earth to the middle of nowhere?
Click to expand...

Because the United States is huge. To drive from the Atlantic to Pacific coasts takes multiple days. Most planned capitals have central locations to give everyone approximately equal geographical access. We see this in most of the U.S. state capitals, and D.C. itself was originally in a central location - but then the country kept on expanding westward. If the country had gained independence in its present form, I'd bet the capital would be right around St. Louis.
 
Callan

Callan

funnyhat said:
Because the United States is huge. To drive from the Atlantic to Pacific coasts takes multiple days. Most planned capitals have central locations to give everyone approximately equal geographical access. We see this in most of the U.S. state capitals, and D.C. itself was originally in a central location - but then the country kept on expanding westward. If the country had gained independence in its present form, I'd bet the capital would be right around St. Louis.
Click to expand...

I was talking from the perspective of a PoD post 1960, as implied by the OP.
 
oshron

oshron

funnyhat said:
Because the United States is huge. To drive from the Atlantic to Pacific coasts takes multiple days. Most planned capitals have central locations to give everyone approximately equal geographical access. We see this in most of the U.S. state capitals, and D.C. itself was originally in a central location - but then the country kept on expanding westward. If the country had gained independence in its present form, I'd bet the capital would be right around St. Louis.
Click to expand...

it was in the central part of the country when it was approved and organized from 1790 to 1801
 

funnyhat

Daltonia said:
I was talking from the perspective of a PoD post 1960, as implied by the OP.
Click to expand...

It's the same rationale: the country has now expanded far beyond its original borders, and so it's unfair to much of the population to have the federal capital on the East Coast. There are in fact many people who agree with this in OTL (although they generally concede that it wouldn't be practical to move the government at this point). Every now and then a politician will propose some bill to relocate the capital city. A Nebraska candidate for the U.S. Senate (Ben Sasse) is proposing this right now.

oshron said:
it was in the central part of the country when it was approved and organized from 1790 to 1801
Click to expand...

Yes, as I noted in the very post you replied to.
 

Kevin C. Smith

I believe that there were proposals for a summer White House to get away from pre-air conditioned summer D.C. (not an unheard of idea). Perhaps, had it been done, the expansion of federal agencies for the New Deal, WWII and Great Society might have been located there. That might lead to the possibility, at least, of relocating the executive branch.
 
Gorrister

Gorrister

Probably not, even if things did get worse, people would get up in arms about it. If they could do it, I'd suggest Philly.
 

Simreeve

Expat said:
Are there any examples of other countries moving their capital because the city's unpleasant to live in?

I can't think of any off the top of my head. I can't possibly believe that DC in the late '80s* was worse than London in the Victorian era, which saw pollution, murder, human degradation, and, who could forget, the smell of poop, permeating the daily existence of all residents, high and low.
Click to expand...
Which led Parliament to seriously consider relocating upriver to Oxford, at least for the summer, instead... although in the end they stayed, but authorised the embankment of the Thames and the construction of a new sewer system...
 

Expat

Simreeve said:
Which led Parliament to seriously consider relocating upriver to Oxford, at least for the summer, instead... although in the end they stayed, but authorised the embankment of the Thames and the construction of a new sewer system...
Click to expand...

Exactly, you fix the problem. You don't move cities to avoid cleaning your house.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top