Should Any U.S. State Capitals Move?

[Manitopiaaa]

I've always wondered why some capitals in some states are so small. Take into account Frankfort, KY or Jefferson City, MO which are in the 35-50k range in states that have 4 million and 6 million people respectively. I've also wondered why some states have capitals that are completely isolated from where the population they are supposed to represent is centered. A lot of this is centrality, the notion that a city in the middle of a state is the best option. Another time, these decisions over where to place a capital are done through compromise. If you were given the power to shift any state capital to another city, which would you move and where?

This Wikipedia article has a lot of good information over the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

Here's one I would move and why (and I hope to add more later including Nevada, Florida, Maine and New York):

1. Alaska: Juneau (32,164) to Anchorage (295,570)

Alaska is a big place. If juxtaposed on a map of the US, you find that Alaska would strecht from California (the Aleutian Islands lying in Hollister County) to Georgia (with the Alexander Archipelago) lying west of Savannah). So we have a massive state that would extend from an Atlantic state to a Pacific state!! Yet, the capital of this state lies neither in the biggest city or the most central one. It lies instead in the charming, naturally well-endowed city of Juneau (near Atlanta, GA on our map). Juneau has around 32,000 people with no suburbs and little room to expand (due to mountains) near the municipal boundaries. It also has another claim to fame as being the only state capital to not be connected to the state's other population centers by road. If you wanna go lobby your legislator or have to go to the capital for official business, you have to fly there (and it's often pricey, not to mention dangerous during Winter) or take the ferry.

Moreover more than 50% of the population lives near Anchorage, Alaska which would be akin to living north of Springfield, MO on our juxtaposed map. So does it make sense for you to travel from Springfield, MO to Atlanta, GA just to have access to your state government? I don't think so! Neither did most Alaskans in 1978 who voted it to move it from Juneau to "not within 30 miles of Anchorage" in "Western Alaska" (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph..._Capital_(1978))

Anchorage is a great location geographically as well, since it's also very centralized (relatively-speaking)

Here's another map of Alaska showing the exact location of the major towns and "city"


So which would you move and more importantly, why? It can't just be "I think California should move its capital because Sacramento SUCKS!!". Even though I find Sacramento to be a pleasant and affordable city, the problem here is that you aren't convincing anyone of anything more than your own lack of restraint. So be factual and objective! Bonus points if you can give the new capital its capitol building!!!

For Anchorage's new Capitol Building, I do like the Anchorage Mormon Temple. It looks very Alaska-y to me:

Link: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/anch...on-temple1.jpg

[IraGlacialis]

In the case of Jeff City, I think the relatively centralized location it is in is best.
This is especially when you consider that A) the two largest and most powerful metropolitan areas are on opposite sides of the state, B) centralizing represents the balance between the rural and urban communities, and C) it's on the Missouri, an important cultural icon of the state.
As for the issue of size, its goal is to administer, not be a economic hub (the same could be said of our national capital). In any case, can you imagine the **** that would hit the fan if it was moved to either KC or STL, or if it was simply in a location that definitely favored one side over the other geographically?

[Manitopiaaa]

You could also make the argument that the state is losing out on a lot of intelligent and hardworking people who simply don't want to spend their life in a place like Jefferson City. Yes, you can still get enough bureaucrats but I would argue they are always of a lesser quality to those in bigger capitals with nearby universities, recreation and higher pay. I would propose moving the capital to Columbia. It's not too far north but is a much funner city (by a mile), is prettier, has a more elegant feel and 2.5x times the population of Jefferson City. St. Louis and Kansas City would still get shut out and the only people who would oppose are Jefferson City lawmakers, and maybe Springfield lawmakers (damn you Missouri State!) although the latter has nowhere near the pull of Mizzou administrators supporting the move. I wanted to attend Mizzou for years before I chose Oklahoma State University but found the campus to be nothing less than gorgeous.

A similar "rivalry" and the centrality obsession caused Ohio's capital to be neither Cleveland nor Cincinnati but the soon-to-be-incorporated Columbus which grew because it was both 1) centralized and 2) had better fundamentals (primarily as a transportation hub). Right now, I think Columbia, MO has better fundamentals like Columbus, OH (both education-wise and being bisected by I-70 instead of JC) while Jefferson City, OH is like the then Zanesville and Chillicothe.

Plus, Washington DC was chosen in its swampy, Potomac location to entice Southernerns to help repay the North's Revolutionary War debts. It was Hamilton's plan to get rid of the accrued debts: 1) Southerners help pay for the North, 2) North would agree to having the capital of the US in the South (even if just one state south of the future Mason-Dixon Line). The other two candidates being well established economic hubs already (Philly and New York)

[weava]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

You could also make the argument that the state is losing out on a lot of intelligent and hardworking people who simply don't want to spend their life in a place like Jefferson City. Yes, you can still get enough bureaucrats but I would argue they are always of a lesser quality to those in bigger capitals with nearby universities, recreation and higher pay. I would propose moving the capital to Columbia. It's not too far north but is a much funner city (by a mile), is prettier, has a more elegant feel and 2.5x times the population of Jefferson City. St. Louis and Kansas City would still get shut out and the only people who would oppose are Jefferson City lawmakers, and maybe Springfield lawmakers (damn you Missouri State!) although the latter has nowhere near the pull of Mizzou administrators supporting the move. I wanted to attend Mizzou for years before I chose Oklahoma State University but found the campus to be nothing less than gorgeous.

A similar "rivalry" and the centrality obsession caused Ohio's capital to be neither Cleveland nor Cincinnati but the soon-to-be-incorporated Columbus which grew because it was both 1) centralized and 2) had better fundamentals (primarily as a transportation hub). Right now, I think Columbia, MO has better fundamentals like Columbus, OH (both education-wise and being bisected by I-70 instead of JC) while Jefferson City, OH is like the then Zanesville and Chillicothe.

Plus, Washington DC was chosen in its swampy, Potomac location to entice Southernerns to help repay the North's Revolutionary War debts. It was Hamilton's plan to get rid of the accrued debts: 1) Southerners help pay for the North, 2) North would agree to having the capital of the US in the South (even if just one state south of the future Mason-Dixon Line). The other two candidates being well established economic hubs already (Philly and New York)

it would be a huge waste of money to move the capital and abandon all the infrastruture in Jeff City. Plus we have one of the better capital buildings in the US. Not everyone wants to live in a big city either, especially in MO. Everyone I know over 40 would rather live in a smaller town than a city.

[mgk920]

Just like with Missouri, Wisconsin has a fantastically beautiful and functional capitol building, but there are many times when I wonder if we wouldn't be better served by getting it out of Madison....



Mike

[Cal_Escapee]

Why do you think the state capital has to be a big city? But OK, we'll think about some changes when the capital of Canada becomes Toronto.

[atrain5371]

Originally Posted by mgk920

Just like with Missouri, Wisconsin has a fantastically beautiful and functional capitol building, but there are many times when I wonder if we wouldn't be better served by getting it out of Madison....



Mike

Certainely it's better than Belmont. It has the criteria mentioned by one forumer of being a "funner" city in the same city as the state's prestigious and research center and largest public university. The only reason to move it would be for central location in which case it would end up some place like Wausau. I know you were talking politics when you want it out of Madison.

For Wisconsin central location is probably less important since most of the population lives near Lake Michigan or in the Southern Part.

Probably the best example of central location and the largest city is Des Moines.

[Manitopiaaa]

Oklahoma City, Little Rock, Nashville, Jackson, Baton Rouge, Annapolis, Harrisburg, Albany, Hartford, Montpelier, Augusta, Bismarck, Pierre, Lansing, Columbus, Indianapolis, Phoenix (somewhat), and Dover all have some geographic motivation to them (being in the center). It's probably the best variable in guessing a state's capital. I also don't think bigger cities make better capitals. In many cases, cities like Naypyidaw or Brasilia or Abuja, Nigeria are created because there is some problem with the capital having been in the largest cities (Rangoon, Rio de Janeiro, Lagos). I do think cities with better amenities, better arts and cultural options, better trails and nature reserves, and better schools tend to make better capitals since they help attract better government workers. That doesn't mean they have to be large cities, but typically larger cities have an advantage to when it comes to that than smaller cities. I do think Ann Arbor would be a better capital than Detroit even though Detroit is 15+X larger (though Lansing is probably a better choice altogether)

[BTA88]

Of the top 5 largest cities in the country, none are state capitols. I think this is a good thing. In PA, NY and Illinois, the largest cities do not properly represent the people of the state. PA is much different than Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, NY state is much different than NYC, and Illinois is much different than Chicago. These are all rural states with disproportionately large population centers not reflective of the state as a whole.

As a Philadelphian living in rural PA, I can see that it'd be bad news for the rest of the state to have the center of power based in Philadelphia. I think it's better to have the state's center of power located in a small city than a large city, because it's easier to protect liberty that way.

[desertpunk]

Move the Kentucky state capitol to Lexington. Give Frankford a Toyota plant in exchange.




.

[hudkina]

That's what I was going to say. But then you're going to have to airlift the capitol building.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by desertpunk

Move the Kentucky state capitol to Lexington. Give Frankford a Toyota plant in exchange.




.

I agree. Kentuckians wouldn't want Louisville as the capital but Lexington has all the attributes of a successful site. It has a good brand, it's a university town with more educated citizens, has good transportation connections, is Kentucky in character and has a fair amount of amenities.

[diablo234]

I don't even see a rational for moving any of the state capitals around.

Take Illinois for instance, even though the capital is in Springfield, it is pretty obvious that Chicago and it's surrounding metro area is the one calling the shots since 90% of the state's population lives there. The relationship between Las Vegas and Carson City (with the main population center in Las Vegas and the capital city in Carson City) in Nevada is pretty similar in this regard as well. So you can hardly say it would give other areas more influence since it would depend on how the population is distributed within each state to determine political influence.

[IraGlacialis]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

You could also make the argument that the state is losing out on a lot of intelligent and hardworking people who simply don't want to spend their life in a place like Jefferson City. Yes, you can still get enough bureaucrats but I would argue they are always of a lesser quality to those in bigger capitals with nearby universities, recreation and higher pay. I would propose moving the capital to Columbia. It's not too far north but is a much funner city (by a mile), is prettier, has a more elegant feel and 2.5x times the population of Jefferson City. St. Louis and Kansas City would still get shut out and the only people who would oppose are Jefferson City lawmakers, and maybe Springfield lawmakers (damn you Missouri State!) although the latter has nowhere near the pull of Mizzou administrators supporting the move. I wanted to attend Mizzou for years before I chose Oklahoma State University but found the campus to be nothing less than gorgeous.

I dunno... there is still something nice and symbolic of having the capitol overlooking the Missouri the way it does. Not to mention the seconded point that we have an extremely beautiful capitol; I am currently not optimistic of whatever would replace it.

If it is a case of amenities, my compromise would be to set up a high speed rail between it and Columbia (dropping the time between Mizzou to the Capitol from around 40 min to about 15 min), which itself would be part of a one-stop high speed line between STL and KC. Possibly extend as line to Rolla, which should serve as easier access from the Ozarks.
That should also take care of the issue of easy accessibility, which I will concede is a slight issue.

[Calvin W]

Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee

Why do you think the state capital has to be a big city? But OK, we'll think about some changes when the capital of Canada becomes Toronto.

Right after New York City takes over from Washington DC......

[redbaron_012]

The cost of lifting power lines and trimming roadside trees would make this cost prohibitive !

[nicholasrudar]

I'd move California's capital from Sacramento to either Los Angeles, San Francisco or San Diego

[TransAtlanticTunnel]

Los Angeles, California; Las Vegas, NV; Anchorage, Alaska; New York City, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Kansas City, Kansas; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Minneopolis, Minnesota; Seattle, Washington; Miami, Florida. To me, those cities should be the capital of their state. There may be more I missed. I don't know how big or small Austin, Texas is compared to Houston or Dallas or El Paso.

[VelesHomais]

No, I derive a certain degree of satisfaction from the fact that state congressmen have to work in relatively obscure towns.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by VelesHomais

No, I derive a certain degree of satisfaction from the fact that state congressmen have to work in relatively obscure towns.

I have been wondering half-seriously, due to this thread, if state capitols should be moved out of the biggest cities in the case where those cities are huge. What are the negative and positive impacts of Boston and Atlanta being not only the biggest city by far in their respective states, but then also having the state government? Boston was capital since the 1600s, so keeping it makes sense, but Atlanta has less to lose historically, so what would happen if the capitol was moved elsewhere to give a second city more weight to throw around? What if Savannah or Macon was the capital?