This one is for Mr. McNeely.
Rick, did you know that our Sixth Circuit adjoins the Eighth, Seventh, Fifth, Eleventh, Fourth, and Third Circuits? That’s more neighbors than any other circuit! We really are the heart of it all.
Dear Mayor Coleman:
This week, while driving to work, I caught a few minutes of a story on public radio about some new “Young Professionals” initiative. Since I’m 29 and professional-esque, my eyes pricked up. They aired several sound bites from an incredibly excitable consultant about what we could try to improve life here. It sounds like you are trying to attract and keep more young, hip professional citizens in Columbus, which is a good idea and an uphill slog. I’m sure you noticed that the Census recently reported Ohio is now one of the top exporters of talented college graduates.
But what I heard on the radio didn’t do it for me, and since I’m actually in the target demo, I thought I’d let you know. First off, tell your advisors we young professionals never want to be referred to as “YP’s” again. Just go ahead and call us yuppies, but not YP’s. Yucky Poo.
The person on the radio was concerned that we don’t have enough information about what’s going on here. She suggested that we what we want is an online calendar telling us what the local events are. Further, apparently you need to re-invent Mapquest, because “people don’t even know where in their neighborhood the grocery stores are!” She told us that we want more bikeways, and that it (apparently) will be a big draw if Columbus would be the location of the first statewide “young professionals’ conference.” Also, she pointed out that Milwaukee has three and a half people working full time on attracting young professionals, and “even Cincinnati has someone.” Shouldn’t you consider hiring her as a full time YP-attractor, too?
Well, no. You’re the mayor of a big city, and you have services to provide to the general population. Just focus on the basics, and the city will take care of itself.
Take transportation: why was I driving one mile to work, anyway, except for the fact that such a trip on the bus costs $1.50 and takes almost 20 minutes? Connecting the city’s bike routes and parks would be a good idea, but the city’s pace of construction is glacial, downtown still isn’t linked with most of the regional bike assets, and there isn’t a single, real, marked bike lane anywhere in town. It would be nice if we could get more non-stop flights out of CMH, too (but I refuse to ride in the Nationwide-logo Skybus “demonstration plane”).
Fire response time could improve. It took the fire department about fifteen minutes to get here the last time I called, even though the station is only seven blocks away. What were they doing?
Why is garbage collection still free while recycling costs good money? We’re always running out of landfill space. If you really want to attract hip young things, make Columbus a truly green city. I can’t name any environmental initiative you’ve sponsored at all. (Hell, even inept COTA runs bio-diesel buses.)
Finally, I can’t resist pointing out that I was with you when you stared at the first arch over High Street back in 2002, and the dang things still don’t work. Turn the lights on!
I’m not complaining too much; things work reasonably well here (we’re not Cincinnati), but don’t let yourself get distracted with these consultants. No one ever moved to Austin or Seattle or New York because the city government set up a web site. You can’t change the weather or give us an ocean, but you can fix the nuts and bolts. The jobs and residents will follow.
Sincerely,
Bill Cash
I’ve thoroughly enjoyed riling up my friends on the left, Marcus Banks and Venezuelan Army Maj. Marty Stroodler, over the issue of D.C. voting rights. To Justme, I would retort that holding a sign reading “Will Make Political Commentary for Money,” and actually eating because of it, is a wonderful dream.
Washington, D.C., which the Supreme Court relegated to mere and literal footnote status last week, is clearly a banana republic that should be squelched until it learns its lesson.
Well, I’m kidding somewhat. In all this debate, I have been disappointed that no one took up for Washington as a normal American city. When I criticized the city for having no industry to speak of, I was sure I would hear “XM Radio!” (In truth, I just tried to think of another employer to include here that wasn’t 1) out on I-66 or I-270, 2) government, 3) quasi-government, 4) education, or 5) food, and I couldn’t do it. Sorry, Lady Columbia.) The city does have parks, rivers, boats, schools, etc. It deserves dignity as a regular place to grow up in, that just happens to have the capital. Tragically, its transient residential status caused the thousands of readers and commenters of our web logs collectively to bypass this aspect of Washington life.
“Retrocession,” or as I call it, “digestion by Maryland,” would degrade this unique character. I oppose it. Those who say it would free Washington of certain burdens, such as having to run a DMV, miss the point. This would strip Washington of its dignity as a special city. Further, it is impossible. The point of creating a “non-residential ‘federal quarter’” is to solve the voting problem by putting its population into a jurisdiction that has Congressional votes (Maryland) while leaving the part of the city that belongs to all America under federal control. The problem is that such a zone, at the minimum, would have to be a triangle containing the Jefferson Memorial, the White House, and the Supreme Court, and there are a lot of people living within that triangle. Either there would have to be forced evacuations for the purpose of creating a sterile zone, or those people would have to be left out of the plan to give voting rights to all citizens. Moreover, a sterile non-residential zone goes against principles of good city planning (Jacobs) and further debauches a grand old lady.
It seems unlikely that Washington will ever have the population to support two representatives. The city is atrophying and has lost about 40% of its population in the last fifty years; at the same time, the number of people supporting a single House seat grows ever higher. In 2010, the number of people needed for a State to claim two seats will exceed one million — five hundred thousand more than Washington has. Washington’s House delegation, if awarded proportionally to the other States, would never exceed one.
Senate representation is a great question. Logically, if the basis for granting a House seat is that people deserve an equal voice in Congress, then there is no reason not to grant a “full” two seats’ Senate representation. Otherwise, we’ll still have the “second-class status” argument hanging out there. (It was amusing to see Stroodler willing to bargain down to a single seat. Washington been down so long, it don’t know what up is.) But while the great constitutional compromise between the large and small States was to create two bodies, the House for the people and the Senate for the States, it does not justify granting Washington two Senate seats for the simple reason that Washington is not a State. (And we all agreed to leave at least part of Washington a “local government” rather than a State.)
I also find it interesting that in all this, nobody advanced the legal argument that the “District Clause” of the Constitution, art. I, cl. 17 (go here and search for “District”; also read interesting annotations), which provides that the Congress has broad powers to control affairs relating to the District, gives Congress the power to add a seat without a constitutional amendment. (I think this is because I’m the only law student involved and maybe this isn’t getting a lot of press.) This is a really dumb argument; it’s clear that the clause provides the power to control land use, building restrictions, police authority, and those kinds of things; it doesn’t let Congress restructure the Congress by changing its membership. I think it’s sad that some, including the Utahns colluding with the Democrats to add the seat, want to justify the change on this weak ground, rather than embarking on the lengthy moral crusade of amendment. By granting D.C. electoral votes, the American people have already demonstrated that if the cause is just, they will amend the Constitution even at the expense of their own interests. That is the surest route to solving this problem, whatever the solution may be.
P.S. Washington residents are also ineligible to vote for constitutional amendments. Have a nice day.