From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: D.C. Statehood
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 06:15:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Nov19.210300.25889@cbnewse.cb.att.com> ronaldd@cbnewse.cb.att.com (ronald.h.davis) writes:

[There are many good reasons to make D.C. a state, but Ronald Davis
fails to mention any of them in his barrage of mis-statements.]


>In article <1992Nov19.193211.26073@u.washington.edu>
tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes: >>Why make D.C. a

>> >first, d.c.
didn't come from a state, it was carved out of maryland and virginia.

Originally, D.C. was taken from Maryland and Virginia, but the
Virginia part was returned to Virginia sometime in the 19th century
and is now called Alexandria.


>second, the idea of blindly returning these sections to these states
>is not practical.  for one thing, these states no longer "own" the
>property so the idea of "returning" the land to those states is about
>as "ridiculous" as returning the land on which the u.s. exists back to
>the natives from whom it was stolen.

ownership and sovereignty are completely seperate issues.  Right now
D.C. is owned by the U.S. government, the D.C. government, and various
private landowners.  That wouldn't change upon reincorporation.  Right
now the "sovereignty" over D.C. rests in the Federal government which
has, by statute, ceded some of it to the D.C. government.  The Feds
have every legal right to transfer sovereignty back to Maryland, just
like they did with Arlington.


>even if this were done it would put properties of national office under the
>jurisdiction of states - no way anyone's going to go along on that one.

There have been proposals to cede all the residential areas of D.C.
back to Maryland, and leave the Federal Triangle under direct Federal
control. 


furthermore, the non-federal section of washington d.c. [which
proponents want to turn into a state] exists as a political entity.
your suggestion would tear apart the political structure under which
d.c. residents live with no regard to their wishes [since i doubt many
d.c. residents would favor your suggestion]

"You can't always get what you want" - Mick Jagger.

Just because D.C. residents don't want to return to Maryland is not an
argument against it.  Just as the argument that NYC residents want
their own Senator is not *per se* a reason for granting them one.


>the fact that congress
>has the right to rule washington d.c. without regard to the wishes of
>the voters [and without providing them voting representation in that
>body] is why there is a move to d.c. statehood in the first place.
>why should the u.s., the so-called "leader of the democratic world",
>be the only nation in the world where residents in the national
>capital have no representation in the national government.

You're right.  But in most nations, the Capital is just another city,
with the same representation as any other city.  Is that what you
want?  I beleive that D.C. has a population of about .5 million.  If
so, it would get its own Representative.  Giving it two Senators when
the 7 million people in NYC have none needs a stronger argument than
"we want it that way."


>if washington d.c. were 70% white this sure wouldn't be the case...

Probably true.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner

Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american