Biden reiterates support for DC statehood

[CitizenVectron]

I think that DC deserves to be its own state...but I also believe that any city over 1-2 million should also have its own representation. I mean, what the fuck does Atlanta have in common with Butt Fuck, Georgia? Or Austin and Butt Fuck, Texas? NYC and Chicago have more in common than either of them do to small towns in their respective states. Organizing along random geographical lines doesn't make any sense in the modern age. Cities should be give more direct control over taxation and policy, and then rural areas more control over theirs. If North Dakota can be a state, NYC should be a state.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

I think that DC deserves to be its own state...but I also believe that any city over 1-2 million should also have its own representation. I mean, what the fuck does Atlanta have in common with Butt Fuck, Georgia? Or Austin and Butt Fuck, Texas? NYC and Chicago have more in common than either of them do to small towns in their respective states. Organizing along random geographical lines doesn't make any sense in the modern age. Cities should be give more direct control over taxation and policy, and then rural areas more control over theirs. If North Dakota can be a state, NYC should be a state.

American cities probably have too much control over policy and taxation, tbh. Part of why NIMBYism is so effective.

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

American cities probably have too much control over policy and taxation, tbh. Part of why NIMBYism is so effective.

 

Moot point for making DC a state though. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Moot point for making DC a state though. 

The particulars of DC being made a state have nothing to do with my response to CV’s idea and his understanding of local governance in America because his point went beyond the issue of DC statehood.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

25 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

American cities probably have too much control over policy and taxation, tbh. Part of why NIMBYism is so effective.

Most cities are in Dillion rule states so they have no authority other than what is given to them by the state legislature

 

 this is a nonsense take

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

And reactionary/classist/racist nimbyism is allowed because of states allowing localities to set and enforce zoning.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

And reactionary/classist/racist nimbyism is allowed because of states allowing localities to set and enforce zoning.

LMAO, that’s the point my man. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

LMAO, that’s the point my man. 

It would still exist if localities could not set zoning. You're not making a point.

 

The racism and classism doesn't stop at the city line

[Guest]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

It would still exist if localities could not set zoning. You're not making a point.

Re-read your last post where you explain the power that cities have, which is exactly what I’m saying they ought not have.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

5 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The racism and classism doesn't stop at the city line

You think if largely reactionary state governments would not set up structures to protect the wealth and property of those with wealth and property? Houston is an outlier here, and still bound by restrictive covenants and other laws

 

States largely have the power now to stop it and they don't for the most part. Just look at the fights in CA at the state level over zoning reform. Incumbent homeowners, who benefit from the status quo fight like hell to keep it that way. This would play out similarly in every state. Hell, here in virginia we had a bill fail last year that would legalize duplexes in areas zoned for single family homes.

[CitizenVectron]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

American cities probably have too much control over policy and taxation, tbh. Part of why NIMBYism is so effective.

 

On the other hand, cities have to rely on outside sources of funding and a large swath of policies determined by suburban and rural voters. Obviously there are tradeoffs.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

On the other hand, cities have to rely on outside sources of funding and a large swath of policies determined by suburban and rural voters. Obviously there are tradeoffs.

I think what it ultimately comes down to is you need different levels of government to do different things, and America unfortunately has many aspects of it's governance handled in the wrong places. 

[Spork3245]

18 hours ago, sblfilms said:

There is no good reason to create a state with 700k people in it, especially when it’s population doesn’t present any radically different needs than neighboring states which could absorb it.

 

PR statehood actually makes sense given it’s size and location.

There are multiple states with similar (or even less) people living in it than DC.

[CitizenVectron]

22 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

There are multiple states with similar (or even less) people living in it than DC.

 

So propose a choice: DC gets statehood, or those smaller states are absorbed into larger ones.

[Spork3245]

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

So propose a choice: DC gets statehood, or those smaller states are absorbed into larger ones.

Who’s going to absorb Alaska?

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

There are multiple states with similar (or even less) people living in it than DC.

I know, and people constantly complain that small states have outsized representation, so why should we intentionally create more states with small populations that people find objectionable?

 

”Why are there even two dakotas!” is another one, which makes sense because the two states have very similar needs.

 

That is what makes PR a more compelling case for being an independent state. It’s size puts it near the middle of the pack in terms of current state’s and their populations, and it also has a very different set of needs that can’t be met by absorption into a current state.

 

DC would be one of the smallest states and has no needs that make it particularly unfit for being grafted into a neighboring state.

[Joe]

We need our resident bordicua to weigh in: @Ghost_MH

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Nothing wrong with adding states for political purposes

[marioandsonic]

36 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Who’s going to absorb Alaska?

 

Russia

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Nothing wrong with adding states for political purposes

At least you said it  

[Spork3245]

29 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I know, and people constantly complain that small states have outsized representation, so why should we intentionally create more states with small populations that people find objectionable?

 

”Why are there even two dakotas!” is another one, which makes sense because the two states have very similar needs.

 

That is what makes PR a more compelling case for being an independent state. It’s size puts it near the middle of the pack in terms of current state’s and their populations, and it also has a very different set of needs that can’t be met by absorption into a current state.

 

DC would be one of the smallest states and has no needs that make it particularly unfit for being grafted into a neighboring state.

I don’t disagree, but I also think 700k US citizens deserve proper representation, at least the same as the 580k living in the entire state of Wyoming 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

12 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

At least you said it  

A thing can be both good and good politics. There's a long, rich tradition of making new states for political purposes, and I make no qualms about it.

 

Even still Marylanders don't want DC, and DCers don't want to be in Maryland. And quite frankly if we're going to have an undemocratic senate then we need to find any way to balance it in our favor that we can

[Joe]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

A thing can be both good and good politics. There's a long, rich tradition of making new states for political purposes, and I make no qualms about it.

 

Even still Marylanders don't want DC, and DCers don't want to be in Maryland. And quite frankly if we're going to have an undemocratic senate then we need to find any way to balance it in our favor that we can

 

What's the latest data you have on Marylanders not wanting DC and DCers not wanting to be in Maryland?

[Ghost_MH]

11 minutes ago, Joe said:

We need our resident bordicua to weigh in: @Ghost_MH

 

Puerto Rico needs to be a state yesterday. They can't even go through a natural disaster without sitting on the edge of their seat wondering if they'll get help. While we're hemming and hawing over statehood, how about Congress permanently carve out an exception in the Jones Act for any state and territory facing a natural disaster? One less thing for a future president Ivanka Trump to fuck with.

 

Either way, Puerto Rico is the largest group of Americans in one place without the ability to vote for president. DC is in a terrible position, but at least they have their three electoral votes. Puerto Rico is worth six or seven electoral votes. We're taking about an entire Utah of disenfranchised Americans. It's gross.

 

As for DC, they have their own identity. I'd be for them becoming a state as long as any federal lands are carved out and remain independent.

 

As for other huge cities, there really aren't many is say are comparable to the situation DC is in. I'm thinking probably LA and NYC. Yeah, if those wanted to be states, that's cool too. I don't think you could really extend it beyond those three cities, though. Even then, are you looking at all of LA county? All of NYC and the neighboring boroughs? Blah, DC is fine as its own state.

 

That said, I do believe all Americans with a permanent address on US soil should be able to, at the very minimum, vote in the presidential election. That doesn't mean Guam gets an electrical vote but maybe you could just merge all the smaller territories into a smaller than Wyoming 1 or 2 votes, even if they don't have voting members of Congress.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, Joe said:

 

What's the latest data you have on Marylanders not wanting DC and DCers not wanting to be in Maryland?

Marylanders narrowly favor D.C. statehood, unlike Americans overall, according to Post-U. Md. poll - The Washington Post

WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM

---

Free State residents support statehood, but oppose making the District a new county in Maryland.

 

Quote

However, the poll suggests Marylanders of all political views are more supportive of D.C. statehood than in the country overall. A narrow 51 percent majority of state residents favor making the District a separate state, compared with 40 percent who are opposed.

...

The Post-U. Md. poll finds Marylanders oppose making the District a new county in their state, a plan called “retrocession,” by 57 percent to 36 percent. There is little variation depending on political party, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents all opposed.

And

Quote

2016 Washington, D.C. statehood referendum - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

 

 

 

[Spork3245]

So, why would DC go to Maryland and not Virginia?   Didn’t both states cede land for it?

[Jason]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

So, why would DC go to Maryland and not Virginia?   Didn’t both states cede land for it?

 

Virginia already took back its part because they wanted to be able to keep selling slaves. Arlington and Alexandria. 

[Jason]

DC used to actually be a square. 

[Spork3245]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

Virginia already took back its part because they wanted to be able to keep selling slaves. Arlington and Alexandria. 

They should give it back so it’s big enough to make it a state  

[chakoo]

I can go either way on DC (it's own state or absorbed into another) yet I still think PR should be dealt with first and made into a state.

[Fizzzzle]

I actually do think metro areas should be absorbed into whatever state the majority is a part of. Like, Alexandria and Arlington should be made part of DC. Kansas City, KS should become part of Missouri. Locally to me, Clark County, WA should become part of Oregon.

 

The simple reason is mass transit becomes a nightmare when it has to cross state lines. To give Clark County as an example, nearly half a million people live there, a lot of whom commute to Portland for work. There are only 2 bridges over the Columbia, so traffic is a fucking nightmare constantly (I used to commute to Vancouver every day). There have been talks about transit solutions, but Oregon and Washington can't agree on who's going to pay for it, so nothing ever happens.

 

(of course if it was incorporated into Oregon, it would lose its status as a tax haven - Oregon has no sales tax and Washington has no income tax - so that might cause an exodus. But whatever, more housing)

[CitizenVectron]

 

[ort]

21 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

I actually do think metro areas should be absorbed into whatever state the majority is a part of. Like, Alexandria and Arlington should be made part of DC. Kansas City, KS should become part of Missouri. Locally to me, Clark County, WA should become part of Oregon.

 

The simple reason is mass transit becomes a nightmare when it has to cross state lines. To give Clark County as an example, nearly half a million people live there, a lot of whom commute to Portland for work. There are only 2 bridges over the Columbia, so traffic is a fucking nightmare constantly (I used to commute to Vancouver every day). There have been talks about transit solutions, but Oregon and Washington can't agree on who's going to pay for it, so nothing ever happens.

 

(of course if it was incorporated into Oregon, it would lose its status as a tax haven - Oregon has no sales tax and Washington has no income tax - so that might cause an exodus. But whatever, more housing)

 

If that means St. Louis gets East St. Louis... no thank you.

[Joe]

Sorry Puerto Rico. Better luck next century.

[SaysWho?]

On 1/21/2021 at 12:37 PM, sblfilms said:

At least you said it  

 

It's why many states exist, anyway, so if they don't willingly combine, then make more states, I say.