Jack ‘em up and put wheels under ‘em. Take the circus on the road.
Because I feel you have the most solid arguments against, I wanted to respond specifically to your questions.
First, yes, we would probably continue to keep the many monuments in Washington as it is today. No reason to remove them. However, we are already, in fact, maintaining them right now and doing so would help keep the area as a tourist attraction. Some many be repurposed or moved of course, and that would be for Congress to decide.
The cost in moving records and employees should not be insurmountable since we would, logically, simply be migrating them over the course of years - I would estimate 12 years. We’re fast moving past paper records anyway; it costs no more to store electronic files in Arkansas than in WDC.
Third, I would expect not; that’s a small part of the point of moving. You can create a more limited Federal District, but still large enough to operate effectively. The new district could simply forbid permanent housing within its borders except by actual elected officials, ensuring no one is refused a vote.
Sorry about that; I was just mentioning that growth in the middle of the country also weighted the population more towards the west on average.
The biggest reason not to do it is that none of the reasons OP offers are good reasons. Some of them like “the political problems of Washington” aren’t even bad reasons. They’re not reasons at all. Moving the capital wouldn’t solve anything. And it would create tremendous upheaval and hardship for the people who work for the government now and all the people whose livelihoods depend on that. Or maybe that hardship is the reason? Is this one of those “the cruelty is the point” issues?
But we’d be duplicated many of them. We’re going to have to build a new White House, for example, for the President to live in and to locate major administrative offices in. But we’re not going to tear down the old White House or sell it for condos. We’ll declare it a historical monument and pay for its upkeep in addition to paying for the upkeep of the new building.
I feel this an overly complicated way to achieve that goal. I feel we’d be much better off achieving the same goal by shrinking down the current district to a more reasonable size.
It seems like it would be easier to just amend the Constitution to make DC a state, or let it revert to MD. One or the other of which would have to be done to fully enfranchise the current residents as it is.
I really don’t see the point in relocating the Capital, even ignoring costs. Because even if aliens transport all the functions of government to the heartland, the moon, or Mars tomorrow, and do it all for free, DC still isn’t a state. It is still under the thumb of the federal government.
I will admit this is essentially what we did with the three executive mansions our country had before the White House. All were sold off and later demolished. I’m surprised people in the 19th and 20th centuries didn’t have a greater sense of their historical importance.
This was one of Andrew Yang’s (former Democratic Presidential candidate 2020) platforms.
His reasons were:
Yang has said repeatedly that the culture in DC is so different than many other parts of the country that most people in DC don’t understand what people in other parts of the country are trying to convey to them. He contends that moving agencies nearer to the people they serve would give them a different perspective.
If you move these agencies and decentralize them, maybe. I think it would probably be a good move to relocate some parts of the bureaucracy, but moving the congress, white house, and courts in and of itself won’t change the culture because they are the center of power, and that problem will follow the capital wherever it goes. Regardless of where you put the capital, there will always be people trying to influence what happens within its circles.
I think Yang’s idea was a bad one. There’s a reason businesses like to centralize their operations; it’s more efficient and it makes for more effective management.
Which, after 9 months of remote work, most of us surely realize is inadequate. There are real benefits to meatspace interaction. Whether they outweigh other legitimate points, I’m not sure. But let’s not pretend it doesn’t matter.
This is bullshit. The problem isn’t that people in Washington, D.C., have a skewed view of the rest of the country. It’s that it’s to some people’s advantage to claim that it’s so. So, the result is the opposite—people around the country have a misconception of the people in Washington, D.C.
If the prior weren’t bullshit, this would do nothing to solve the problem.
Where do they think that the people in actual power in Washington came from? Not from within the Beltway. All the members of the Senate and House but one (with their respective senior staffers), all the members of the Supreme Court, the entire Cabinet and virtually all their senior policymaking staff, the Joint Chiefs and virtually all their senior staff, all came from somewhere else.
They’re thinking of those nameless “bureaucrats” that are sipping Dom with lobbyists and laughing at Real Americans as they devise new regulations and red tape just to screw with the rubes. Never mind that every federal employee I’ve ever met has the same “culture” and concerns as any other white collar employee.
Custom-made capitals are dull places. Think Brasilia and Canberra. Way off the tourist track, and not that popular with the locals, either, who only live there because they work there.
Germany moved its capital twice, setting up in Bonn after WW2, and moving back the Berlin after the reunification. It was done in stages and took a few years.
One thing about a move is the need to find or build suitable buildings for all the embassies. It did weird things to the property market in Bonn.
Sure, they came from elsewhere, but after a while they become more-or-less permanent residents of the Washington, DC area.
While it might make some sense to change the borders of the capital district to include essentially no population, it’s an idea whose time is past. To do so now would require a Constitutional amendment, or you’d end up with the First Family controlling three electoral votes all by themselves.
That said, it might make sense to move some agencies. Yes, meatspace interaction is important, and that’s why it would make sense. Take the USDA, for instance: While there’s some value in having USDA officials able to interact in person with Congressmembers, surely there’s more value in them interacting in person with farmers. Which you’ll find a lot more of in the vicinity of Kansas City than in the vicinity of Washington.
If people are changed by moving to a new location to work for the federal government, won’t that still be an issue regardless of whether they’re moving to Washington or to a new location somewhere else in the country?
People will still be making the same complaints. The only difference will be they’ll be complaining about those faceless bastards in Joplin, Missouri instead of those faceless bastards in Washington, DC.
Who are not substantially different than the more-or-less permanent residents of other places.