This question was brought to mind by the fact that New York’s current mayor (Michael Bloomberg) does not live in Gracie Mansion (the traditional home of NYC mayors) but in his own apartment.
Now, in the case of New York’s mayor, it may not make all that much of a difference, because it’s all local. But it got me to wondering…
What if Bloomberg (or any other wealthy American) decided to run for President and win. And he decided that he’d rather live in his home town (New York, in Bloomberg’s case). Furthermore, let’s say he’s willing to buy extra property (so he can properly house his staff here), upgrade the communications, etc. in his home so that he can effectively do his job from there. He’d still make trips to Washington to address Congress, meet with people, etc. However, since Washington is only about an hour and a half away by shuttle plane (he’d have his own airplane, 'natch), it wouldn’t be too onerous even if he had to go in every day.
That being said, is there anything preventing him from doing so? And if not, what if the next President was from a bit further away. Like Fairbanks, Alaska (where he wouldn’t come in to Washington as often…)?
Well, didn’t Harry Truman continue living in Blair House for much of his Presidency, due to renovations being done on the White House? I know, that’s not directly related to the OP, but there’s some TINY precedent for a President living elsewhere.
Obviously, there’s nothing in the Constitution that says a President has to live in the White House. But as a practical matter, it would make no sense at all. Moreover, there’s a big difference between the President and the mayor of New York. New York’s may does all his real work at City Hall, while Gracie Mansion is only the mayor’s residence. A New Yorker with a secure home in the City can commute to work with no real problems.
The White House, however, is both the President’s workplace AND his residence. It’s already set up to be the center of the federal government. In theory, a President could choose to sleep, shower, and have breakfast at any building in the greater DC area… but it’s taken years and millions of collars to set up the communications network in the White House. Any President who chose to ignore all that and spend a fortune duplicating that setup elsewhere would be regarded as a flake, at best.
I can’t see anything that would, aside from the deeply urged desires of the Secret Service, CIA, Congress, public, etc. etc. that he live in the White House. There’s a residence set aside for the Vice President that I believe occasionally the VP doesn’t use.
I’m not aware of any law that requires the President to use the White House, but after the various agencies stressed to him the impracticality of living somewhere other than the White House (seeing as it’s been set up as the Presidential “nerve center” for the last few decades) I’m sure any reasonable President would relent.
And on preview, astorian said everything I just did, only better. Phooey.
I apologize for the fuzzy recollection but - I believe that at least one President refused to live in the White House, perhaps at/after its initial completion, because the building, and possibly also Washington DC at the time, were inhospitable places to live.
On a related note, I believe there may have been some UK PM’s who refused to live at 10 Downing Street (Thatcher?). I believe Cecil has written about it. I don’t know if there’s any legistlation that ‘requires’ their residence there.
In regard of British Prime Ministers - Downing Street is the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury, not the Prime Minister. If you look carefully it still says First Lord of the Treasury on the door (on the letterbox). Churchill apparantly tried to have it changed but was told it was not possible under the terms of the legacy that left Downing Street to the nation.
Anyway, the position of First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister are today always combined, but it was not always so. Lord Salisbury was PM but not First Lord, and was hence unable to use Downing Street which was inhabited by Balfour, the First Lord at the time. Equally in earlier centuries, while 10 Downing Street was in the gift of the PM it was often used as an item of patronage, rather than as a residence for the PM.
Anyway, since Lord Salisbury, who used his own London house, all Prime Ministers have used Downing Street as their office. The flat above Downing Street has been used as living accomodation by most Prime Ministers. The sole exception is the present incumbent, Tony Blair, who instead lives in the flat above 11 Downing Street, apparantly because of his children he required the slightly larger number 11 flat. The living accommodation above number 10 is currently occupied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown.
Maggie Thatcher did use the flat above 10 Downing Street - the only other reluctant user of the flat was Harold Wilson, whose wife Mary hated Downing Street and, during Wilson’s second term of office (1974-1976) refused to live there. Wilson however did still use the flat during the week.
10 Downing Street come swith the job, but there is nothing forcing the PM to actually make use of it.
Yes, Truman lived in Blair House because the White House was being renovated (and needed it badly - there were parts of it that were no longer being used because they were in such a state of disrepair). And it illustrates one reason the Secret Service wouldn’t like a President living fulltime somewhere else - there was an assassination attempt on Truman in which the attackers attempted to storm Blair House - a slightly bigger attack might have worked. They much prefer guarding the White House where they’ve been fine-tuning the security for decades.
President Cleveland lived in the White House while Congress was in session, but meanwhile rented a hillside home outside Washington so that he did not suffer through the summertime heat at the White House.