Report a Comment

From your post, yes, I can tell that you really don't understand what the federal interest is and why it is unique to Washington.

The instances you cite in Nevada and elsewhere are all instances where the federal government has an interest only as a landowner ... not really very different from any other landowner in these states other than how these lands owned by the federal government can be used to meet specific public policy goals (e.g., mining on federal lands where it helps the country be self sustaining in regards to energy production.)

The federal government's interest in Washington is far different. Having been founded to be the US capital, the Federal interest in Washington is broad, intrinsic, and inseparable from almost anything that occurs in Washington. As the nation's capital, Washington is the country's face not only to the US States, but to the rest of the World. Hence the Congressionally mandated and produced McMillan Plan which is being used as the template for developing a world class city with monument, wide avenues, parks, wireless streets, etc. And as the seat of government, it serves to meet other unique governmental needs of the federal government which no other jurisdiction must deal with such as being the home to over 150 emabassies and providing Secret Service protection to these embassies scattered throughout it etc.

Washington was created as a federal enclave to serve a purpose. That need hasn't gone away. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be given our votes in Congress and have our say in national matters, but as long as we are the Capital the pervasiveness and inseparability of the federal interest so much that occurs in this city means that we will have a different relationship with the federal government than the states have by right. Remember, they created the federal government, and the federal government created us.

by Lance on Feb 9, 2011 5:35 pm • link • report