https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/how-dc-spent-200-million-over-a-decade-on-a-streetcar-you-still-cant-ride/2015/12/05/3c8a51c6-8d48-11e5-acff-673ae92ddd2b_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_carbarn-1035pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The plain fact of the matter is Washington DC was more efficiently run when it was managed by a Congressional comission, the theory being if the Congressmen were going to live there, they'd better make sure the city was run in the best manner possible. Then DC home rule was instituted in the 1970's and it seems it's been downhill ever since.
Columnist George Will has called DC a failure of democracy. Whatever anyone may think of Mr. Will it's hard to argue with the premise.
My view is that intead of just building a functionally designed car barn they threw in a lot of bells and whistles including solar power, underground sistern, special architechture, etc...........that is what drove up the cost.
DC had years of Congress setting the standard for governance - they are just emulating Congress in getting nothing done.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
In the first place, I doubt Congress had any such far sighted ideas about creating a city Congressmen would want to live in. For long decades they tended to stay in boardinghouses because their work didn't take all year and they were interested in saving money. If memory serves right, Congressman Abraham Lincoln saved money by not only staying at a boarding or rooming house, he even shared a bed! Yup. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You can look it up."
Second, isn't it much more likely that the "downhill" in Washington DC in the 1970s was caused, not because home rule was institued, but rather because during those years white people, for all kinds of reasons, simply moved out of the city and into the suburbs?
Isn't is true that the same thing happened in nearly all major cities in America, especially those north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi? It was quite obvious in Cleveland: middle-class (well, as we used to define middle class) people wanted a newer, lager house with a big yard, etc. It was black and hispanic people that bought the older houses because they were now affordable to them. This situation repeated itself all over this region.
Without doing any research on the topic I'll posit this: After World War II, in Washington DC the white middle class of government workers and their families simply sold their houses and moved to Maryland and Virginia. These people tended to have better paying jobs than other government workers and the government workforce kept growing in size, indeed it still does. And the expanding subway system facilitated this exodus as the highways did earlier.
My point: It wasn't home rule that caused Washington to go "downhill." It was demographics.
As the District's demographics continue to evolve the city will evolve with it. Those little town houses are increasing in value daily and there are tons and tons of young, hip, well paid people buying them at impressive prices.
DC ought to have home rule. It ought to have a Congressman with a vote. It ought to have an electoral vote. Home rule equals democracy. There's nothing wrong with democracy.
NKP guy In the first place, I doubt Congress had any such far sighted ideas about creating a city Congressmen would want to live in. For long decades they tended to stay in boardinghouses because their work didn't take all year and they were interested in saving money. If memory serves right, Congressman Abraham Lincoln saved money by not only staying at a boarding or rooming house, he even shared a bed! Yup. As Casey Stengel used to say, "You can look it up." Second, isn't it much more likely that the "downhill" in Washington DC in the 1970s was caused, not because home rule was institued, but rather because during those years white people, for all kinds of reasons, simply moved out of the city and into the suburbs? Isn't is true that the same thing happened in nearly all major cities in America, especially those north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi? It was quite obvious in Cleveland: middle-class (well, as we used to define middle class) people wanted a newer, lager house with a big yard, etc. It was black and hispanic people that bought the older houses because they were now affordable to them. This situation repeated itself all over this region. Without doing any research on the topic I'll posit this: After World War II, in Washington DC the white middle class of government workers and their families simply sold their houses and moved to Maryland and Virginia. These people tended to have better paying jobs than other government workers and the government workforce kept growing in size, indeed it still does. And the expanding subway system facilitated this exodus as the highways did earlier. My point: It wasn't home rule that caused Washington to go "downhill." It was demographics. As the District's demographics continue to evolve the city will evolve with it. Those little town houses are increasing in value daily and there are tons and tons of young, hip, well paid people buying them at impressive prices. DC ought to have home rule. It ought to have a Congressman with a vote. It ought to have an electoral vote. Home rule equals democracy. There's nothing wrong with democracy.
A very thorough and cogent analysis!!
Well you forgot to mention that Blacks from the South emigrated to the Midwest because the idiots in the South clung a little too long to their Cotton based economy and when the Depression hit a lot of Blacks moved up from the South to join relatives already established in cities like Detroit, Chicago, New York, etc.
So that was half of the story you excluded. Now as to the one size fits all scenario. Milwaukee has more blacks within the city limits 40% black to 44% white compared to Chicago's 32% Black to 40% White. Yet Chicago has a far bigger issue with racism and Police mistreatment of minorities. If you ask me it has more to do with City Hall than a specific race moving away from the city. If you look at the history of Detroit, it was more City Hall and the corruption there than it was Whites moving to the suburbs that doomed that city as well.
I will add this caveat as well before this turns into a "It was Blacks Home Rule that ran down the cities" argument. Detroit again being the example, under majority White rule prior to the Depression era exodus to the city. City Hall was horribly corrupt and remained so throughout the majority of the Depression up until the Blacks started to take electoral office from the Whites. There were some stretches in there where Detroit City management was clean but not too many.
I hink the problem is that trolley/light rail advocates began emphasizing the idea of these lines as an economic development attractor, rather than for their transportation potential. Polititions grabbed on to the dreams of economic development, at the expense of practical transit considerations. So they were in a hurry to build anything with rails, not worrying if anyone actually rode the mislocated lines.
My biggest question of the 'street car line' is 'What is its purpose?'
DC already has a rather extensive Metro heavy rail elevated/subway system operating in Northern Virginia, the District and Maryland. What purpose does the street car line satisfy that Metro lines don't fulfill?
Area not served by Metro and less expensive to install than Metro. Does connect with Metro with very little duplication.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.