DISTRICT OF CHAOS: Christopher Badeaux, the Lord Mage of Good, writes (he’s in bold, I’m in plain text, as is traditional): A few points:

First, you mentioned two reasons why D.C. won’t become a state any time soon. I’m sure you know this, but there’s also the Constitution — you know, Article II, Clause 17 — and that seems to preempt full autonomy for DC.

There’s a good argument to be made that Congress may authorize the creation of a new state (or lay aside all power) from/over the District — but that’s for another time, and I think it fails. (Then again, it’s similar to the argument for and against legislative handoffs to executive branches, and my side has lost that battle for the last seventy years.) Anyway, point is, there’s a big, potentially even amendment-big obstacle to complete home rule.

Oh sure. I was discussing what I thought would be the best thing for the city, barring Constitutional issues. I figure once we figure out what we want, we can figure out how to get it, and if it takes an amendment, we could push for that. My main purpose in the big DC-related post was just to rebut people who claim the District’s current situation is actually good or “as good as you can expect for those Barry-votin’ freaks.”

There’s also the plenary concern — yes, this is a more integrated, nation-first, state-second country than at the Founding, but is it really that good an idea to give schizoid Virginia or screwed-up Maryland control over the seat of Congress? I still have friends in the area, in both states, and none are impressed with either state — and that’s with what they’re dealing with now.

I guess I just don’t see what they could do. Could they screw up DC worse than quasi-home-rule-quasi-colonialism has? Yeah, I’m not impressed with many governments, but there is no “only good governments get to control the District” option. If Maryland or Virginia wanted to jerk around the District, they could do it now; in fact, by linking DC’s fortunes to Maryland’s, the re-absorption plan might make such jerking-around less likely. I wouldn’t put money on that, but it seems at least as likely as whatever state-sponsored scuzziness Badeaux is envisioning.

I lived in D.C. I really didn’t like it. (Yes, the seafood, especially at Phillips, when you can afford it, rocks. But being shot at on the way to a $580/month studio apartment does not.) One *can* move. In fact, people — based on the census over the last couple of decades — have moved. It happens. (In response to your point about NYC and the burbs: (1) That’s a false analogy, except, insofar as I

understand it, Albany can revoke NYC’s city charter at will; (2) Hells, yeah, they should move if things get ugly. Then again, I moved seven or eight times before I turned eighteen. I didn’t get stuck on one particular place.) The DC metro area is so tiny that the differences are really, to my eyes, only in crime rates.

I’m sorry, I think I wasn’t clear–I certainly didn’t mean that you can’t move, or that people shouldn’t, or whatever. What I meant is that “You could always move!” isn’t a good argument for withholding self-government. If you don’t like DC, by all means, skedaddle. But just as I wouldn’t say to a New Yorker, “Bloomberg’s smoking regs are fine–I mean, come on, you can always just move if you don’t like them!”, so I think it’s even lousier/stranger to say to a DC resident, “You know those guys you didn’t get a chance to vote for or hold accountable? If they jerk you around, get over it–you can always move!” Conversely, if “you can just move” is a good enough argument for jerking around DC, it should be good enough for jerking around NYC. That’s all I meant.

Before you say anything, I concede how lousy Metro service is beyond (and in) the District; but last I checked, that was getting better too.

[shrug] I got no beef with the Metro. Anyway, thanks for the letter.