I recently visited Springfield and can't say I was really impressed with it at all. I find to be a very disappointing city for being a state capital. To be honest, Chicago is so dominant in Illinois that I was always felt that Chicago would be a much more sucessful capital than Springfield. Does anyonw else agree. If you had the choice would you make Chicago the capital?

Trust me, you don't want THAT much power and corruption concentrated into one city.

Chicago already runs as the de facto capital of the state... Having the distinction as the official capital is really a non issue.

No, the capitol should stay in Springfield. With Illinois being such a large state it is important to keep the government offices near the geographic center, which is the reason why Springfield was chosen in the first place.

I recently visited Springfield and can't say I was really impressed with it at all. I find to be a very disappointing city for being a state capital. To be honest, Chicago is so dominant in Illinois that I was always felt that Chicago would be a much more sucessful capital than Springfield. Does anyonw else agree. If you had the choice would you make Chicago the capital?

Is Springfield Chicago? No, but believe it or not a lot of people like it that way. It's in the center of the state, is a thriving small city (100,000+ city, 200,000+ metro area), has been the State Capitol for over a century and a half, and was the home to the most important historical figure in the history of the state and maybe the nation. The State of Illinois is a lot more than Chicago, and Springfield is a good representation of all aspects of the state.

I say leave it at Springfield. As much as I'm annoyed with any policy that doesn't increase the economic might of the Chicago area, the downstaters at least deserve that much.

Besides, as said before, Chicago already is the de facto capital. The Governer lives there, and a major chunk of the state representatives live in the Chicago area as well. Everybody with any power in the state already calls the Chicago area home.

WHY,WHY, WHY?
Springfield is our great state capital, chicago on the other hand is more of national capital to me, because of its world class status, so no Chicago shouldn't be the capital of illinois, but for the US yes! :)

I don't think anyone would give any thought to downstate IL if the capital is moved to Chicago.

BTW, instead of making it the geographical center of the state, shouldn't you make it at the center of population in the state?

That would make it somewhere near Peoria

As much as I'm annoyed with any policy that doesn't increase the economic might of the Chicago area, the downstaters at least deserve that much.

Right, because downstate we're all hicks with no economic interests worth caring about. I mean, who cares about billion dollar industries such as ADM, Caterpillar, State Farm Insurance, the University of Illinois, and huge tourism industry.

I don't think anyone would give any thought to downstate IL if the capital is moved to Chicago.


Except the few million people who live there.

Except the few million people who live there.

Obviously THEY would. New Hampshire has a few million people and a couple of major corporations and only like 10% of the people I encounter in Chicago can tell me what the capital of New Hampshire is.

Having lived all over the state(Metro East, Springfield, Chicago and metro) there is no reason for the state capital to be moved.
Unfortunaly many people up in the Chicago area have that "New York" attitude where they almost believe they are more important than anything south of I-80. Its a pompeous attitude that so many people, especially on this forum, get all defsensive when they feel the coastal people don't care about Chicago and you know what most of them don't care, they think it is fly over country. Is that right? Of course not, its ignorant. Just as ignorant as the posts that nothing good is in Illinois outside Chicago.

Obviously THEY would. New Hampshire has a few million people and a couple of major corporations and only like 10% of the people I encounter in Chicago can tell me what the capital of New Hampshire is.
:lol: And who's fault is that, the State of New Hampshire or Chicago Public Schools?

..

Move to Wisky Loopy, because Wisconsin is just so awsome :weirdo:

Fuck Illinois.

I wish Wisconsin would annex Chicago.

:sleepy: ? :runaway:

New York = Albany
California = Sacramento
Florida = Tallahassee
etc., etc., etc.

Why should Illinois be any different?

Many states have elected smaller cities that are more centrally located to be capitals, and also to move development away from main urban centers to stimulate development in other regions that are more lightly populated.

If anything, I would move to have states like Massachusetts move their capitals to depressed cities like Worcester as it could help relieve Boston prices and help out deprived Worcester which is more centrally located.

Does the Illinois governor actually live in Chicago?

:lol: And who's fault is that, the State of New Hampshire or Chicago Public Schools?

:lol: touche!

Does the Illinois governor actually live in Chicago?

Yes. In Albany Park on the NW side I believe.

Fuck Illinois.

I wish Wisconsin would annex Chicago.

You had your chance for Chicago, but we got the lake access we deserved.




(along with the third largest metro in the US :))

Does the Illinois governor actually live in Chicago?

Yes, and so did his predecessor.

^^ I thought George Ryan lived in Kankakee?

..

Yes, and so did his predecessor.

George Ryan was from Kankakee, and his predecessor, Jim Edgar, was from Charleston, Illinois (about an hour south of Champaign-Urbana), and his predecessor, Jim Thompson, lived in Springfield while governor for 14 years(his daughter was born in Springfield and went to school in Springfield). While they were Governor they all in Springfield. The current governor does not, but there's a good chance that will change in a few months. The Democrat nominee in 1998 was from the Carbondale area.

His real home was in Kankakee, but he also part-timed in a condo by the river... because, I mean, who wants to live in Kankakee anyway :D

His real home was in Kankakee, but he also part-timed in a condo by the river... because, I mean, who wants to live in Kankakee anyway :D

Most State officials have part-time residences in Springfield, does that mean they live in Springfield?

Guess not...

I'm trolling, of course. But my point, if I have one, is that Chicago has always been largely resented by the rest of Illinois; and to most Chicagoans, the rest of Illinois barely exists.

A hundred years ago, there was more of a relationship between the City and the State, but not any more. Part of the problem is geographic; The Chicago metropolitan area is a gigantic megalopolis on the top end of an elongated State that has no other urban features. If it were more central, than maybe there would be some kind of cultural connection between City and State.

We have much more in common with Southern Wisconsin, both economically and culturally.

LOL, wrong, maybe you are! Chicago has more in common with NE Illinois, both culturally and economically! True that Chicagoland is such a powerhouse making rest of other illinois regions seem like nothing, but don't forget, there are lots of illinois cities are now thriving one I can quick to say is Moline! :cheers:
BTW, Chicago always have connection and ties with Illinois, it isn't just leading in Illinois, it is leading in Midwest. As far as wisconsin goes, you have Milwaukee to appreciate for!:cheer:

I don't resent Chicago, but I DO resent threads like this.

Jim Thompson moved the defacto capital to Chicago when he build the State of Illinois Building. He was a Chicago-Springfield commuter.

You can't honestly have been to Moline and say it is thriving... Apart from one block which was redeveloped by John Deere with some bars and gift shops, it's dead there.

I wish it wasn't, though. I feel really bad for all the dead main streets and downtowns across the state. We should do some stuff for them at the state level.

The current governor does not, but there's a good chance that will change in a few months.

Are you suggesting that the current governer has a GOOD chance of being defeated? Quit making such ridiculous comments.

Chicago metro is a lot more important than the rest of the state=fact
Throwing it in someone's face=arrogance

The only argument against having it in Chicago would be too much power in one city. I think we should make a new world's tallest building and have the Illinois governing body as the first tenant.

Chi649, God help us if Blago is re-elected. I don't care what party you are for, that guy is such a snake, hell even his own party can't stand him, but you might be right, he could be re-elected because he has somethig Topinka or anyone has, LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF FREAKIN MONEY!!!!

Are you suggesting that the current governer has a GOOD chance of being defeated? Quit making such ridiculous comments.

That's exactly what I'm saying. You may not like it, but when your approval rating is equal to or less than your disapproval rating, you're in trouble. Is it a sure thing? No, because as Tony said he has a ton of money to buy commercial time. But there is a good chance. There's also a "good" chance that the current governor will be wearing the color orange in the not too distant future...as in an orange prison jumpsuit. Lets just say the room he's in stinks right now at a time when not many voters are paying attention, but if/when it ALL comes out in the next few months the smelly substance he's covered in will hit the fan.

^^^If in fact it comes out that he did something wrong, then you will be right, there is a good chance he will not be re-elected. But as it stands now, he is about 8 points ahead. That's why I consider someone saying there is a good chance he will be defeated ridoculous.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/August/IllinoisGovernor.htm
So lets stick to the facts for now. If he is indicted, then that's a different story.

There's no question he's done something wrong. The only question is will it come out before November. The "facts" are that his office is under investigation, and the State Attorney General (a Democrat) won't endorse him for re-election. He's going to need all of that money of his to win. One of the first rule of politics is don't P*** off the press, and he's done that many times over with some of his antics. As for the poll, a few problems: (1)it's over three weeks old, and (2) it doesn't include the third (Green) party candidate. At this point in the campaign when he's already spent a boatload of money and Topinka has barely spent any, 8 points is not much of a lead...especially when he's not over 50%.

Here's one from last week: http://surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateGovernor060822State.htm. He's in trouble, and the campaign for his opponent hasn't really started yet.

Nah, best to keep all those politicians as far away as possible. ;)

MRichR and Chi649- Polls mean nothing. I mean, many polls projected that John Kerry would win the 2004 election and we all know how accurate that turned out to be. The only poll that is accurate is the one on election day.

Oh, MRichR, I also hope that Blago is run out of Springfield on a rail. The man is a snake and I would rather see him removed from office before the shit hits the fan than see Illinois suffer another national embarrassment. :bash:

Ordgasm and MRichR both hit it on the head. When the District Attorney who is a democrat won't even be in the same room with him, something is up. This guy is just soooo creapy. I consider myself an Independent and am not big into Topinka, but it really is choosing the lesser evil.

MRichR and Chi649- Polls mean nothing. I mean, many polls projected that John Kerry would win the 2004 election and we all know how accurate that turned out to be. The only poll that is accurate is the one on election day

Actually, there is a poll on election day. It is called an exit poll. Early exit poll data on election day 2004 projected Kerry with a slight edge. All of the other regular polling before election day had Bush ahead. Most political campaigns pay close attention to polls to guage their effectiveness, so to say these polls mean nothing is simply untrue. When it is a real close race though, it does mean less.

Blago has real accomplishments such as raising the minimum wage and child health care. All the republicans have is a smear campaign. Oh this guy is a snake, he did this, he did that, with 0 evidence. Lisa Madigan, state attorney general, says that must remain neutral in the governor's race to avoid any ethical conflicts. That is why she hasn't endorsed him yet. There have been a lot of conclusions jumped to here so like I said, lets wait until the facts come out. There are a lot of politicians under investigation right now and I doubt all of them are guilty. Until someone can present me with some evidence, I will not believe all the hype.

Yes, they should make Chicago the capital! :scouserd:

Chicago should be the capital.

No, the capitol should stay in Springfield. With Illinois being such a large state it is important to keep the government offices near the geographic center, which is the reason why Springfield was chosen in the first place.

I thought that would end the debate.

But I was wrong.



Trust me, you don't want THAT much power and corruption concentrated into one city.


And that was just funny. Especially coming from a Chicago resident.

Fuck Illinois.

I wish Wisconsin would annex Chicago.

You should start a movement down there. I'm sure Wisconsin would love to absorb Chicago's tax revenue for our own. Just not the 9% sales tax....

You should start a movement down there. I'm sure Wisconsin would love to absorb Chicago's tax revenue for our own. Just not the 9% sales tax....

i think there is a better chance of chicago annexing wisconsin :lol:

I think the state should split. Northeast Counties and a few of the northern counties who chose. The rest of Illinois needs to stop taking all our money and holding us back.

Lots of the big cities are not the state's capital. I agree that that is just too much power in one place.

I think the state should split. Northeast Counties and a few of the northern counties who chose. The rest of Illinois needs to stop taking all our money and holding us back.

...

I think the state should split. Northeast Counties and a few of the northern counties who chose. The rest of Illinois needs to stop taking all our money and holding us back.

With that kind of attitude, why even support a government? Tax, by nature, is a redistributive mechanicsm, so why not just move for anarchocapitalism?

Don't want to be moralistic, but you know, we're all humans, and I take it as a matter of civic pride that by supporting the economic engine that is Chicago, I'm also supporting at large the welfare of the entire state.

Moreover, concentrating power in Chicago would be a terrible idea. Anything downstate would have no chance of getting their voices heard if all politics took place in the city.

i know this is a radical viewpoint, but i would prefer making Springfield the largest city in the state.

Is there a lot of hate for the state of Illinois from Chicagoans or is it just me???

i think there is a better chance of chicago annexing wisconsin :lol:

didn't we already annex Wisconsin?

i know this is a radical viewpoint, but i would prefer making Springfield the largest city in the state.

Springfield has one of the most ridiculous road layouts I've seen. Very few roads go all the way through town, and there are many seemingly random one way roads where you least expect them. For some reason, Crystal Lake Avenue, one of the principal routes through the city going east west, splits into two one-ways, then crosses itself at a stoplight, making the one-way roads go through downtown in the opposite order that one might expect.

Springfield has one of the most ridiculous road layouts I've seen. Very few roads go all the way through town, and there are many seemingly random one way roads where you least expect them. For some reason, Crystal Lake Avenue, one of the principal routes through the city going east west, splits into two one-ways, then crosses itself at a stoplight, making the one-way roads go through downtown in the opposite order that one might expect.

it's not like the state government is any more functional.

don't they usually choose minor cities so that it helps other cities out instead of putting all eggs in one basket kinda thing?

be careful what you wish for. wouldn't making Chicago the capital of Illinois also make Daley the emperor of Illinois?

I say leave it as it is, in part because I am used to it being in Springfield, I have been there and love the State Capital building but also for practical reasons. If we look at it logically and consider the logistics of moving the capital to Chicago it makes sense to keep it where it is. Think of the taxpayer money that could be involved in doing so especially considering there is no real reason to move it (i.e. the State Capital building is big enough).

On the plus side for the Chicago proposal there is the Thompson Center in which is already the defacto secondary state capital building, a large number of state employees (second to Springfield if not exceeding it), the governor and ther other state wide officials (Lt. Gov, Sec of State, Att Gen, Treasurer, Comp) already have offices in and seem to mostly operate out of Chicago at the Thompson Center and spend most of their time in the Chicago area. The executive officers have no real need to be in Springfield anyways, sans for the once a year Governor's state of the state address before the legislature I guess. Every major state agency seems to have an office there and working right across the street from it I must say it feels like a state capital in fact there is more energy there than in the real state capital. Many offical state events take place there where the state Treasurer gives a speech for African American History Month or whatever. The Thompson Center would also be one of the most unique State Capital buildings.

On the negative side for the Chicago proposal there are no chambers for the legislature to meet in the Thompson Center. There is an auditorium but there would need to be two chambers (House and Senate) and secondly it would just be lame to meet in a bland auditorium when there are already nice traditional looking chambers in Springfield. So the state would have to find a place or build a building in Chicago where the legislature can meet, costing the taxpayers alot of money. There would be greater security concerns in Chicago because there would likely be alot more protests due to the legislature being there than in Springfield due to it being more accessible to more of the state's population (which can be a good thing in a free speech sense depending on how you look at it). Also I personally think the State Capital building in Springfield is gorgeous and would hate to think of what would happen to it if it was vacated much less what would happen to the city of Springfield as a result, also there is the whole Lincoln conncection in Springfield and it should stay in there because Lincoln was one of the people that advocated locating the capital there to begin with. It could be just as simple as since it makes sense for the legisluature to stay in Springfield it might as well remain the capital.

One other unprecedented possibility is that there could be two state capitals; Chicago for the executive branch and Springfield for the legislative (Judicial could go either way, I am not sure what the current arrangements are there). Chicago already is the defacto capital for the executive branch and I suppose all that would have to be done is create an official governor's residence in Chicago (if provide an official residence at all, is there any state that does not?) and make a permanent state run revenue making bed and breakfast/conference center out of the Springfield residence or just sell it outright. However if Chicago is already the defacto capital for all statewide executive officers why bother making it so in name also? It will just piss more downstaters off. I already tell outsiders and newcomers that Springfield is just where the state legislature meets because for all intents and purposes it is true right now.

be careful what you wish for. wouldn't making Chicago the capital of Illinois also make Daley the emperor of Illinois?

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Think of all the good things he does for Chicago, could you imagine what he could do for the state?

On a serious level, I would hate to see the capital of Illinois in Chicago or anywhere in Chicagoland for that matter.

For much of its history, the power in the state of Illinois was evenly enough divided between Chicago, suburbs, and downstate. Today that power has unquestionably shifted to Chicgoland. Rural America has suffered far more losses than urban America.

We have reached a sad point in the development of our state where politically the number of people who live downstate are almost reduced to irrelevancy...they can hardly tip the balance of power in the N.E. corner of the state.

Taking the state capital from Springfield to Chicagoland would make downstate more invisible and less likely to have its needs met.

In a sense, having places like Springfield and Champaign-Urbana out there reminds us there is anothe Illinois than us and it needs to be recognized and nurtured, too.

well id leave it downstate, it gives us people in chicago a place to visit in the summer... and i agree with some too much corruption and power...

If your going to move the State Capital to Chicago then you should build this monster and put it in it:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/Theillinois.jpg