Taxation without representation

[fanzee1]

The rules were set in the Constitution. Don't like them? Move.

Personally, I prefered living in Silver Spring, or Beltsville, or any where but the district. Old Town Alexandria would be nice too.

Ishmael

what an absurd comment. the constitution itself was constructed largely on the principle that times, people and the nation can, do and will change. That's why the document that gave birth to our federal system of government is supremely elastic, so that it can change with the times. And representation for D.C. is one way in which it is going to change. It's just a matter of time. The district already has nonvoting representatives in congress. Soon, it will have voting representation. It's inevitable.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Wow! Thanks for the great thread, KM.

I'm really glad that this issue has started to get some media play.

I've lived and worked in DC and its suburbs since 1971. I have never been mugged, even though I am a social worker working with homeless people in one of the poorer downtown areas of DC. None of my friends or family members have ever been attacked or assaulted in the City. Again, I have lived here for 31 years.

The issue of voting rights for District residents is even worse than the fact that they have no representation in the making of the laws of the country and how their Federal tax dollars are spent. Congress, by law, must pass the annual budget for the local City government, and dictates how DC residents' local tax dollars are spent, as well. The whole situation is grossly unfair and violates some of the basic rights upon which this country was founded. Remember the Boston Tea Party?

Azwed said:

First, in my experience, this is not as true as Azwed believes. Every month, Washingtonian magazine has a feature on megabucks ($750,000+) residential real estate transactions in the metro area. Although many of the people Azwed refers to do live in the burbs, many also do live in DC. Perhaps a reason why many of these people choose not to live in the District is because they lose their federal representation if they do. It is, in fact, the main reason why I moved out of DC.

The Gimp said:

I disagree that that this situation "will never" change. Just because something has never happened does not mean that it never will. We ended slavery and gave women full voting and citizenship rights. The history of our country shows that when our laws support a situation that is blatently and inherently in conflict with the spirit in which the country was founded, we eventually correct those laws. and politics does make strange bedfellows. I'm not certain that DC will eventually become a state, but I am certain that, somehow, the people who live there will get their franchise.

Ishmael said:

This assertion is both historically inaccurate and bizarre. For one thing, the Capital City was not determined to be created until 1790, as part of a political compromise between Virginia and Pennsylvania, both of whom wanted to house the seat of the Federal government in order to give itself increased political leverage. It was not created to be a playtoy of Congress or a site of experimentation. Congress maintained control over the District in order to ensure that local citizens could not create laws or tax burdens that would hamper the functioning of the Federal government.

From the US constitution, Article I, section 9:

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District* (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance
of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And"

*My emphasis.

You are correct on the original reasoning for the establishment of District. It was put outside the influence of any state. After that issue had been dealt with, futher discussion and correspondence took place regarding the role of congress regarding the District.

In any event, establishing Statehood for the district is essentially going agianst the framers original intent. And it will still take a constitutional ammendment.

Ishmael

 

[TWB]

It has its place in history, but makes no sense now. Presently, it is a plot against democrats.

 

[Ishmael]

It has its place in history, but makes no sense now. Presently, it is a plot against democrats.

And what makes you think the Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of this? They aren't you know.

The democrats of the more conservative stripe aren't going to want statehood for the district. It is not a state in by any definiton of the word. It has no industry, no economy, no productivity, no lands to administer to. In other words, it has nothing of any consequence.

To this you may argue, "Well it is the capitol of the Nation. It has the White House, Capitol Building, etc." To which I counter. All of these buildings and lands belong to the federal government and always will. They will NEVER fall under the jurisdiction of the District. In the end you would end up with a state that has nothing but bedrooms and embassys (can't tax those either.) And the restaraunts along with other service business's normally associated with a bedroom community.

Which brings us to the point that in fact of law, the entire district is, strictly speaking, federal property. It would be a case where the government is representing itself. A contradiction.

Other than as a political ploy, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Ishmael

 

[TWB]

I am not sure that that is true. People own property in DC, it has its own local government (tho I think it basically is a federal creation). Dems may or may not be in favor of it, I don't know. Basically I was being flip. However, it clearly would put 2 more democratic senators and one house member in the legislature. B/c of this I am certain the RePubs are politically opposed.

And, yes, it will take an amendment, which won't happen.
So, at this point, it is all academic.

 

[JazzManJim]

Not true! Five years ago, Congress placed DC under the governance of a Control Board that was chaired by Alice Rivlin, a former congressional budget guru. All local government decisions were subject to being overruled by the Control Board until last year. DC earned its way out from under the thumb of the Control Board by having four successive years of finishing in the black, financially.

What it comes down to was that DC was withina hair's-breadth of going under financially. That entire Control Board incident was put in place because the DC Government was incapable of running its own house. They put Rivlin there because she has an excellent financial head on her sholders. The current Mayor came from that area, too. As I recall it, the Control Board did very little vetoing, unless it was on some rather interesting spending ideas the City Council might have had.

I manage one of the court-ordered programs within the Department of Mental Health for DC. (I work for a contractor with the City.) The Department is out of receivership and has successfully completed one year of follow-up monitoring by the courts. The entire mental health system has been reformed and redesigned under its new management. During the 3+ years that I have been there, services have become both much more available and more effectively run. I am proud to have played some small role in this turnaround.

I'm very glad to hear that. I'm curious abot when they're going to turn your Department back over to the DC Government. You've done a tremendous job there (and I do mean that. I followed your department in the news before I knew you were involved!), but in time you're going to have to hand it back to DC and then what?

I think that DC could become a fantastic place to live. The atmosphere there is something you just can't find in any other city in the world. It's a wonderful mix of big-city culture, governmental power, small-city charm, ethnic neighborhoods, and quirky little adventures all in one place. My only misgiving is that the people of DC, though their elected officials, do not take the governance of their house nearly seriously enough. I know that's not true of every single resident but, as a group, it certainly is. Until they get serious about it - really serious - then the city is always going to remain what it is.

 

[YogiBare]

deleted

 

[JazzManJim]

Actually, they don't get credit for the very real changes that have been made. Mayor Williams' election marked the turning point for City government. You actually can call the Mayor's hotline when things aren't right, and they do correct the problem. Now, when you call a City agency, you are treated politely and with respect, and can actually obtain follow-up (most of the time!) The government has finally responded to the advocates for the homeless and is comprehensively revamping its entire system of care for the homeless. The government is finishing construction on the brand new, magnificent convention center near to where I work, and has used it as a springboard to involve citizens in planning a revitalization of the Shaw district, which was Duke Ellington's old neighborhood. Many neat things are happening there. I wish that beople who reflexively bash the District would take a serious new look at what's happening there.

I give Mayor Williams serious credit. I think as much credit shold go the the current Chief of Police also for turning what was a laughing stock into a credible, though very heavily overworked, police department.

But there's a Mayoral election coming and I still think the city could go right down the dumper. This election will be the fulcrum, I think, for which way the city decide to go. Do they hold to the old ways (as personified by the brief but radiant appearance of Hizzoner, the Mayor for Life Marion Barry) or do they forge ahead and become the city they truly can be?

For what it's worth, I live down here in the suburbs and I've only once given serious thought to moving (and that was for a different reason entirely). I could live here very happily the rest of my life.

 

[YogiBare]

I give Mayor Williams serious credit. I think as much credit shold go the the current Chief of Police also for turning what was a laughing stock into a credible, though very heavily overworked, police department.

But there's a Mayoral election coming and I still think the city could go right down the dumper. This election will be the fulcrum, I think, for which way the city decide to go. Do they hold to the old ways (as personified by the brief but radiant appearance of Hizzoner, the Mayor for Life Marion Barry) or do they forge ahead and become the city they truly can be?

For what it's worth, I live down here in the suburbs and I've only once given serious thought to moving (and that was for a different reason entirely). I could live here very happily the rest of my life.

Yes. Chief Charles Ramsay is doing an excellent job in a difficult situation. Most out-of-towners don't realize what a burden is placed on the local police by having the Federal government here. Protection of VIPs, crowd control for demonstrations, etc. I feel proud of Ramsay when I see him on national TV with the Chandra Levy investigation.

As for this year's election, I thought that it was incredibly cool how Williams and other Dems talked Marion Barry out of running for City Council this year. It is Barry, more than anyone else, who brought on the disrespect that people feel for DC government.