From: dzoey@frob.eng.umd.edu (Joseph Herman)
Subject: Re: A better view on Statehood.
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 14:50:11 GMT
Organization: /homes/dzoey/.organization
	<1992Oct1.145256.25307@access.digex.com>
	<1992Oct1.183526.3183@access.digex.com>
Reply-To: dzoey@terminus.apexgrp.com
Distribution: dc

>  jamie@access.digex.com (James Treworgy) writes:
>> mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney) writes:
>>>ghost@openage.openage.com (Glenn Host) writes:

>>>  is too small functionally to be a state.  Too much of the land is
>>>  federal and what remains is too small and scattered to be a state.

>   ??? What about Hawaii? Small... What about Alaska? Huge, with population
>   scattered throughout the massive area. Statehood is not about a chunk
>   of land.  Its about people with similar interests.

Statehood isn't *just* about land, but that should be part of the equation,
as should population, and benefits a new state would bring to the Union.
I don't really understand how statehood is about people with similar interests.
That makes it sound like you  need a very homogenous population to become
a state.  This should not be a requirement.

>   What about business?  If there is no economic base then why do I pay
>   10 percent of my income to the District?  What is Hawaii's economic
>   base? What is what is Florida's economic base?
>   Tourism is a perfectly legitimate industry and lots of states
>   depend on it.  But DC has a lot more going on than tourism.

I don't know, what about business?  The district has been hemoraging businesses
since the early 80's.  Crime, high taxes, and a school system that's among the
worst in the nation will do that.  Of course the district isn't alone in
this.  Most large urban areas (NY, LA) have the same problems.  But I
digress.  Hawaii has a large agriculture industry.  Pineapples, macadamia
nuts,and sugar are all profitably grown there.  Tourism is important to
Hawaii, but it's not the only industry.  Hawaii is also larger in land area
than the district.  Florida has a very large agriculture industry, (Florida
oranges, remember).  The Orlando area also has a high-tech industry, at
least it seems that way from some of the misc.jobs.offered postings.  Tourism
is a legitimate industry, but *what else* does the District have?  

>>I have to agree that statehood is ridiculous (personally, I think some
>>of the New England states should be merged together - lump RI, CT, and
>>MA together; same for ME, NH, and VT, but that's another issue entirely).

Naw, they'd never settle for losing that much power in the senate.  Remember,
being first always counts for something.

> Why not just abolish states all together? Do you really think that
> people in Maine, NH & vermont have similar interests?

The poeple on Maryland's eastern shore have very different interests from the
people of Montgomery County.  You don't see a call for the new state of
Delmarva though.  It's okay to have differences of opinion and still want
to be a state.

>  Land has nothing to do with statehood, otherwise the US would be
>  ruled by Alaska.

No, land has nothing to do with power.  It does have a lot to do with a
states ability to contribute to the Union.

>   Why would Maryland _ever_ agree to let 600,000 people who live in what
>   they probably consider to be the biggest crime pit in the world to vote
>   for their senators?

Good question.  Change the name "Maryland" to "Congress" and make the
same argument.  Another reason why the District probably won't merge with
Maryland is that District politicians would never go for such a dilution of
their power.  Home Rule gives Sharon Pratt Kelly more power than Kurt Shmoke.

				Joe Herman

dzoey@terminus.apexgrp.com
--
"Everything is wonderful until you know something about it."