Are you happy with the location of the capital of your state, province or nation?

[Obadno]

I think there is definitely some wisdom to having the capital of a political region be separated from the Population and economic hub city.

But in Modern times do we even really need capitals? Why not spread the departments and staff of various agencies to the places they do their work. Representatives can stay in their own home areas to have ready access to their constituents. The President Does not need a specific residence he can live where he's from. The Department of Energy could be in Houston, the FDA could be in Omaha surrounded by agribusiness

Maybe people would have less suspicion of regulators if they knew who they were and those regulators were around the industries they were tasked with regulating and not part of patronage network out of the far away capitol.

Just a crazy idea.


That being said I wish the capitol of AZ was still in Prescott, hell i wish Prescott was the concentration of population instead of Phoenix. The climate is so much better but water would be a bigger problem.

[McBane]

Even if the City of Philadelphia gets more than it gives, let's not pretend that the City is not the economic engine for the region. Philadelphia and its businesses, sports/entertainment venues, dining, tourism, hospitals, universities, etc. all enable the suburban counties' wealth. If not for the City, Montgomery County, etc. would just be another podunk county.

While it may not be accurate to say that Philly subsidizes the State, I do think it is accurate that overall, the Philly metro area does. And yes, it's the only region of the state that is actually growing.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by McBane

While it may not be accurate to say that Philly subsidizes the State, I do think it is accurate that overall, the Philly metro area does. And yes, it's the only region of the state that is actually growing.

didn't the pittsburgh MSA also have modest growth last decade?

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

didn't the pittsburgh MSA also have modest growth last decade?

The Pittsburgh MSA barely grew in the last decade (+.47%), but it was still down 2.6% compared to 2000.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

The Pittsburgh MSA barely grew in the last decade (+.47%)

barely growing is still better than anything negative.

in the rustbelt, we have to celebrate successes that would be considered failures elsewhere.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by McBane

While it may not be accurate to say that Philly subsidizes the State, I do think it is accurate that overall, the Philly metro area does.

How so?

I'm really wondering what people are defining as 'subsidizing' here.

Philadelphia City/County absolutely is the economic engine for the region... and so it fully makes sense that its suburban counties (as well as other PA counties) fund a significant portion of its services.

The biggest chunk of state tax revenue is obviously going to come from the areas of the state with the highest populations... they're putting more into the pot.

But this notion that state tax revenue dollars from Philadelphia and surrounding counties are subsidizing the rest of the state is just fallacy.

Let's take the greatest "taker" county in the state, Forest County... roughly 13% of its 2022 county budget is made up of state and federal allocations. Now take the suburban Philly counties, Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, you know, the big "giver" counties... what are their state/federal portions of their 2022 county budgets? 35-50%

35-50% of county budget coming from public funds is a hell of a lot more of a subsidy than 13% is.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

As someone from the southest of SoCal, I'm pretty fine with Sacramento being our capital. The Bay Area and LA are inevitably going to disagree about nearly everything, and they are near equal in prominence so it wouldn't be good to favor one over the other. It's best to have a neutral party to resolve disputes. A location in the Central Valley is far enough removed from both to prevent the local politics from effecting state decision making.

Theoretically we could've located the capital further south in the Central Valley, so as to be equidistant to both SF and LA. Fresno is the closest major city to the geographic center of California, making it probably the best candidate. But the tallest portion of the Sierra Nevada lies just west of Fresno, cutting it off from the rest of the country. Perhaps this doesn't particularly matter if one is only looking for a plot of land to build a government office building on, but the lack of connections to the east means Fresno will always have less economic activity than a city with rail and road connections to the greater USA. It would be better to locate the capital in an area with a good deal of commerce, all other things being equal, to take advantage of the skilled labor attracted to such places.

There are only two good passes then over the Sierra Nevada, Donner and Tehachapi. Sacramento lies near the entrance to Donner pass, and Bakersfield to the Tehachapi. Each is around 100 miles from SF and LA, respectively, so both are equally as removed from the politics of the coast. IMO the deciding factor for me is that Sacramento has water access to the Pacific ocean via the Sacramento river and the deep water canal. That's a pretty major advantage for goods shipment, making Sacramento the most accessible city in the Central Valley for industry. That leads to the Sacramento metro area being the most populated and richest area in the Central Valley, with the largest pool of skilled labor. So if we had to do it all over again, I'd still recommend Sacramento for the CA state capital.

Bakersfield. Make the pols sweat. Even hotter than Sac., and closer to the pop. center. Fast travel to both LA and SF area on interstate 5. "Shake and Bake" has good Basque food, and good country music. Good rec. nearby in the Sierra and the cool central coast is less than 2 hours away. Not bad really. Cheap housing.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I agree with you. In my 52 years of life, northern California and the Bay Area have always seemed to despise LA. Owens Valley people hated us for "stealing" their water (though over the years LA has relied less on their water, now only a third of the city of LA's water comes from the Owens Valley), and San Francisco/Bay Area has always claimed that LA gets preference in tax-funded infrastructure and other things. I remember in the mid-1990s, my sister's friend, who is from the Bay Area (Albany, north of Berkeley), complained that the Cypress Structure of the Nimitz Freeway that collapsed in Oakland during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake still hadn't been rebuilt or permanently rerouted, whereas the section of the Santa Monica Freeway that collapsed in LA during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake was rebuilt and reopened within 3 months.

So yeah, Sacramento seems to be a good neutral place for California's capital, although people who have been moving there from the Bay Area in the last 10 years or so seem to claim Sacramento as being part of the Bay Area now, which is somehow ironic, being that many people from the Bay Area seem to look down on the city of Sacramento.

SF gets most if its water from Yosemite NP (Hetch Hetchy reservoir) so they stole water too like LA and flooded a beautiful valley that John Muir loved.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by phone

Regina was built in a barren field and selected as the Capital of Saskatchewan due to shady land deals with Edgar Dewdney, a prominent colonial administrator in the late 19th century.

It has no business existing in the first place -- the notional city we call Regina should by all logic be located either at Lumsden or Fort Qu'Appelle, where there is water and trees.

Either that or Regina shouldn't exist at all, and the Capital ought to be Moose Jaw.

Some say that when Saskatchewan and Alberta were carved out of the Northwest Territories in 1905, that the leading idea was to create one province, but this was kiboshed in the halls of power in Ottawa as the Laurentian Elite didn't want to chance a province that could rival the political weight of Ontario and Quebec. If one province had been created, I always thought that Battleford would have been the obvious choice for Capital. Central location, great geography, beautiful river valley, and it was at one point the capital of the NWT. Instead, Battleford/North Battleford became a third-tier centre in one of the smaller provinces, known primarily for its crime.

Cap of SAS should have been more central Saskatoon, where Diefenbaker came from I recall. Greener and more watered than almost semiarid Regina. Drive out of Reggie and it is short grass prairie, usually dried and yellow.

[MolsonExport]

Regina got the seat of government; Saskatoon got the university.

Regina was larger than Saskatoon back in the 70s, I recall

[phone]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Cap of SAS should have been more central Saskatoon, where Diefenbaker came from I recall. Greener and more watered than almost semiarid Regina. Drive out of Reggie and it is short grass prarie, usually dried and yellow.

Dief came from Prince Albert, but went to law school in Saskatoon and spent the final part of his career here as the chancellor of the University of Saskatchewan.

I actually prefer Saskatoon's character as the university town and private sector hub. If Saskatoon had been designated capital the university almost certainly would have gone somewhere else (Moose Jaw?), making the local character quite a bit different. It's an interesting thought experiment though -- what if you replaced the University of Saskatchewan with the Saskatchewan Legislature?

If the University and Legislature had been located in the same city, Saskatchewan would have wound up with one Winnipeg-like primate city. Having two smaller cities has its pros and cons, but on balance I'm glad that the population has halfway decent distribution in different areas of the province.

You are right about Regina's climate, though Saskatoon isn't exactly lush, even if it has more natural tree cover (and a healthy urban canopy).

[phone]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Regina got the seat of government; Saskatoon got the university.

Likewise, Prince Albert got the penitentiary, and North Battleford and Weyburn got "mental health facilities". I believe there are other examples of this decentralization of provincial facilities across the province that were decided at the time of its founding in 1905.

I also observe that the U of S actually has its roots in Prince Albert -- the college there relocated to and was subsumed by the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.

Part of the local Prince Albert ennui is the sense that they gave up being the university town in exchange for the prison town, and that (along with the ill fated La Colle Falls hydroelectric dam project that bankrupted the city in the early 1900s) led it to its perpetual backseat status, despite actually being the senior city to Saskatoon in certain aspects.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Regina was larger than Saskatoon back in the 70s, I recall

Very true, Saskatoon only outgrew Regina in the 80s.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by edale

The Pittsburgh MSA barely grew in the last decade (+.47%), but it was still down 2.6% compared to 2000.

It's the first time Pittsburgh metro area grows since the 1950-1960. So it's a big thing.

[Centropolis]

Some Midwestern states make sense geographically and even socially, most of them probably. Missouri is a cotton and rice growing, unionized, big nasty river-threaded, ozark forested, ufo infested ranchlanded, post-industrialized rustbelted, corn poned freak.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by dave8721

in 1824 Florida's largest cities were St. Augustine and Pensacola. Tallahassee is roughly in the middle of those 2. Obviously if anyone located a capital in Florida now it would go in Orlando.

Generally speaking, rival business communities will always jockey for power. This decreases the likelihood that a large city, at the time of choice, ends up being the capital when there is more than one large city from which to choose. This is why we often end up with capitals placed some distance between whatever major population centers exist at that time rather than in one of the cities themselves. Of course, geology, geography, access to transportation routes, natural resources, economic potential, and defensibility will inform the choice of the specific location.


p.s. I doubt if Florida ever moved its capital that Orlando would be chosen. Lakeland or Gainesville might be more appropriate. That being said, I think Florida would be wise to do exactly what it is going to do and leave their capital where it is at—Hurricane Ian is showing us why: the entirety of Peninsular Florida (including inland) suffers from such intractable geological and geography problems that moving a capital would never be worth it.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by pj3000

SE PA does not "subsidize'" the rest of the state. This way overplayed notion is simply false.

Philadelphia gets a 260% rate of return from the state on its tax dollar "investment". This is BY FAR the greatest percentage of state funding over taxes received by any urban county. It actually has the second highest second highest percentage of ALL counties in the state... with only tiny Forest County at 7k residents receiving a greater percentage level... and that's only due to the fact that over a 1/3 of the residents are state correctional institution prisoners!

And I actually think Philadelphia should receive more. But let's not run counter to the facts of the matter.

Montgomery, Bucks, Chester, Delaware counties are the top 4 wealthiest in the state. So if you want more funding for SEPTA, they should pay for it.

Hmmm...do you not think Harrisburg gets a huge chunk of the revenue it collects each year from the 5 county Philadelphia area? It's been estimated that 40% of the revenue the commonwealth collects comes from those 5 counties. Pennsylvania has 67 counties and 5 of them are generating nearly half of the revenue. You figure Pittsburgh, Harrisburg-Lancaster, and the Lehigh Valley are putting in another 40-45% together and the rural counties who act like they pay for everything put in their paltry contribution.

We also pay the highest tolls per mile on the Turnpike starting from Downingtown to the New Jersey Turnpike. For me to go to Fort Washington from Downingtown is $5.50 in tolls for a 26 mile ride. It's costs me the same amount to go to the Lebanon-Lancaster exit from Downingtown despite it being 20 more miles longer.

Living in this area it just feels like we pay to prop up the rural areas that are dying...and then they turn around and resent our existence like we are the problem.

Harrisburg as the location of our state capitol is fine. It's linked to much of the state highway wise and a good portion of the state's population can also go there by rail on Amtrak.

[wwmiv]

Texas

These cities have administered portions of what is now Texas since European colonialism began in earnest. Prior to that, important permanent Native American settlements existed at the sites of modern-day Waco (Hueco), San Antonio, and Austin (the Gault site indicates that this area has been near-continuously inhabited for 20,000 years) due to the high number of natural springs which provide a steady and year-round supply of aquifer-generated clean drinking water in the area.

Early Colonialism

Spanish: Vallodolid (pre-1551); Madrid (post-1551)
French: Paris (competing claims of sovereignty against Spain, never de facto in control).

Spanish Period

Pre-1686: Mexico City (also Santa Fe, Durango, and Santander Jimenez)

Spanish Tejas was governed directly by the Spanish from Mexico City. However large portions of the state were administered separately. Ysleta (outside El Paso) and west Tejas were administered from Santa Fe and southern Texas was split between Nuevo Vizcaya (administered from Durango) and Nuevo Santander (administered from a small now-abandoned settlement called Santander Jimenez).

1686-1721: Monclova (in Coahuila, Mexico)

Established as the first provincial capital of Spanish Coahuila y Tejas.

1721-1772: Los Adaes (now Robeline, Louisiana)

On the easternmost frontier of what was then Spanish Tejas, founded to protect against encroachment by the French after Fort St Louis was discovered. This settlement ended up so isolated that the French in nearby Natchitoches had to supply their food. In 1762, this threat ended with the transition of Louisiana to from French control to Spanish. The crown ordered Los Adaes abandoned and relocated to present-day San Antonio.

1772-1821: San Antonio de Bexar

Except for two brief periods in 1806 and 1810 (when Nacogdoches was the de facto capital), San Antonio - being the only true town of note in Spanish Tejas - operated as the capital under New Spain.

1806/1810: Nacogdoches

Due to increasing uneasiness in New Spain, including in Spanish Tejas, and for suspected personal preferences, two viceroyals instead conduct their operations from Nacogdoches.

Mexican Period

1822-1834: Saltillo and Monclova

Mexico again combined Coahuila and Tejas into a single political unit administered from Saltillo and Monclova, alternatively.

1834-1836: San Felipe de Austin and San Antonio de Bexar

The Department of Texas, being a subdistrict, selected and used as a site of government during this time a site outside of modern Sealy, Texas (of Sealy Mattress fame) about 50 miles northwest of Houston

Republic Period

1836: Washington-on-the-Brazos

Where the General Convention, which drafted and signed our Declaration of Independence from Mexico, met here near what is now Navasota northwest of Houston.

1836: Harrisburg

After their declaration, a temporary capital was selected at Harrisburg, now a neighborhood on the southeastern outlying edge of Houston. Santa Anna’s advances forced the provisional government to flee to:

1836: Galveston

… where they continued to operate. At the time, Galveston, San Antonio, Gonzales, Marshall, New Braunfels, Palestine, Paris, Tyler, and Victoria were the largest settlements in Texas. They were again forced to flee by Santa Anna and left to:

1836: Velasco

… a small Tejano town across the Brazos from Freeport.

1836: Columbia

After securing their independence, the first elected government of Texas met in a small town now known as West Columbia, on the Brazos River just inland from the coast and southwest of Houston. The settlement was chosen for two principle reasons: 1. both Texian newspapers were located here, the Texas Telegraph and Texas Register, and had a significant built environment due to previously serving as a regional government under Mexican rule. However, Stephen F. Austin, while serving as Secretary of State passed away from pneumonia while in Columbia and as the needs of the government grew, providing adequate housing became problematic and a different capital was chosen.

1837-1839: Houston

Houston, newly founded, was chosen as the capital by 1st Texan President Sam Houston and namesake of the new city, seizing on the opportunity to claim the Father of Texas mantle from the recently deceased Stephen F. Austin. Mirabeau B. Lamar, a close friend of Austin’s succeeded Houston as President and directed
Congress to appoint a site-selection commission to select a site for a new and permanent state capitol.

1839-1842: Austin

In 1839 a settlement on the western frontier, in an area Lamar thought was among Texas’s most scenic and beautiful (the Hill Country, or Lomeria Grande to the Mexican government), a town called Waterloo near the split in the important roads to San Antonio and Santa Fe, on a bluff above the north bank and interior side of a large river-bend (as it exits the rugged Balcones Canyonlands on the edge of the Llano Estacado) of Texas’s lengthiest and at the time one of the most navigable rivers (the Colorado) was chosen and the name changed to Austin to honor Texas’s preeminent founding father.

In 1841, the deceased Austin’s political rival Sam Houston again became President of Texas. A large portion of the state population, of which President Houston counted himself among the most vocal proponents, believed that Austin was too isolated and susceptible to Mexican interference.

1842-1845: Houston / Washington-on-the-Brazos

Seizing on a diplomatic delegation sent by Lamar to Santa Fe being arrested upon arrival and Mexico capturing San Antonio in 1842, President Houston ordered the state archives moved to Houston (more on that momentarily) and later moved the government’s actual operations to Houston and then to Washington-on-the-Brazos. Houston was not appreciably larger than Austin at this time (both numbered around 1,000) and the local population of Austin prevented the archives from being moved using armed force (under Republic law, the site of the archives is the capital) in an event known as the Texas Archives War. During this time period, the operation of the government only intermittently returned to Austin and instead operated at a distance in either of the two others.

American Period

1845-1872: Austin

In 1845, new President Anson Jones called for a convention to debate annexation into the United States and to approve a new constitution. The convention acquiesced to these requests, and selected Austin rather than Houston as the temporary state capital until 1850 when a statewide vote would he held and another 20 years after to affirm the initial election. In 1850, Austin received a slim majority of the vote over Houston and in 1872 (delayed by two years because of the civil war and reconstruction), Austin again won a slim majority (63,297 votes) but this time over two other cities: Houston at 35,188 and Waco at 12,776.

—————

As of 1870, thirty years after the selection of Waterloo as the site of the capital and nearly on the eve of the final vote ratifying its status, the major settlements in Texas were (source: Texas Almanac):

Austin itself had 4,428, the fifth highest population in the state.

Anglo / American:
Galveston: 13,818
Houston: 9,382
Jefferson: 4,190
Marshall: 1,920
Huntsville: ~1,600
Rusk: ~1,000

Scots-Irish / Scandinavian:
Waco: 3,008
Dallas: ~3,000
Sherman: 1,439

German:
New Braunfels: 2,261
Brenham: 2,221
La Grange: 1,325

Tejano:
San Antonio: 12,256
Brownsville: 4,905
Victoria: 2,500
Corpus Christi: 2,140
Laredo: 2,046

Other cities, when put into the context of their region, show that Austin’s choice of location still, 30 years down the road, made sense given the original political compromises. Austin is centrally located between the four founding demographic groups of Texas during the Republican period: Anglos dominated the southeast and plantation country, German immigrants dominated the Hill Country, Scots-Irish and other European immigrants dominated the northern plains, and Tejanos dominated in the south. This probably will stir feathers, but if history went differently and Native Americans incorporated into our politics, it would have also made sense as well as Cherokee, Apache, and Comanche dominated the west. I will note that Tejano populations are genetically largely reflective of pre-Columbian native DNA, just that they experienced cultural shifts from Spanish cultural genocide where most tried to “pass” as mestizo and then when the United States took over Anglos’ assumptions that these populations were “Mexican” rather than one of the hostile tribes carried over and the ability to pass continued to offer social protection.

Austin was the logical choice in 1839, in 1850, in 1872, and today. No single group was able to dominate and all were welcome. It’s early history shows this multi-culturalism, from the French Legation Building and surrounding estates, Swedish Hill, and Tejano Rainey, to the German neighborhoods scattered throughout what is now downtown. Even after the civil war, this integrative mentality predominated in Austin, with a black freedman’s town called Clarksville surrounded by some Austin’s then (and now) wealthiest neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the racist AF 1929 city plan ruined all of that and segregated the city.

Also: notice that many of the towns selected have nods to Republican ideological history: Washington, Houston, Columbia, Austin, Harrisburg, and even Waterloo.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by PhillyRising

Hmmm...do you not think Harrisburg gets a huge chunk of the revenue it collects each year from the 5 county Philadelphia area? It's been estimated that 40% of the revenue the commonwealth collects comes from those 5 counties. Pennsylvania has 67 counties and 5 of them are generating nearly half of the revenue. You figure Pittsburgh, Harrisburg-Lancaster, and the Lehigh Valley are putting in another 40-45% together and the rural counties who act like they pay for everything put in their paltry contribution.

We also pay the highest tolls per mile on the Turnpike starting from Downingtown to the New Jersey Turnpike. For me to go to Fort Washington from Downingtown is $5.50 in tolls for a 26 mile ride. It's costs me the same amount to go to the Lebanon-Lancaster exit from Downingtown despite it being 20 more miles longer.

Living in this area it just feels like we pay to prop up the rural areas that are dying...and then they turn around and resent our existence like we are the problem.

As I just stated above, "The biggest chunk of state tax revenue is obviously going to come from the areas of the state with the highest populations... they're putting more into the pot."

The have nearly half the population, so yeah, they're gonna contribute nearly half the state tax revenue. It's very simple math... where the most population is, is where the most tax money is going to come from.

But don't go and say that they are "propping up the rural areas" when those same (comparatively wealthy) counties are receiving huge portions of the pot in return. I mean... are you telling me that the four wealthiest counties in the state (Chester, Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware) will cease to be viable locations without 35-50% of their revenue coming from state and federal allocations on a roughly 2:1 basis?

That is a MUCH more accurate instance of being "propped up" by everyone else. And I don't disagree with this... the places that pay more should get more of the collective pot -- we live in a Commonwealth.

To act like YOU are being hurt by paying into Forest County's paltry $341k annual state allocation while your SE PA county is receiving between $250M and $4B annually is absolutely absurd. Get off your high horse.


As far as Turnpike tolls go, whoever uses it the most, pays for it the most. If you don't like it, take it up with the market economy.

Maybe people in PA who don't live anywhere near the Turnpike and don't use it shouldn't have to pay anything to "prop it up", right?

[Buckeye Native 001]

Columbus is about as centrally located in Ohio as one can get, but you could divide the state into four quadrants (Toledo/Northwest; Cleveland-Akron/Northeast; Cincinnati-Dayton/Southwest; Columbus?/Southeast) and most Ohioans probably wouldn't give it much thought. Hell, give Toledo back to Michigan and few would bat an eye

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by pj3000

To act like YOU are being hurt by paying into Forest County's paltry $341k annual state allocation while your SE PA county is receiving between $250M and $4B annually is absolutely absurd. Get off your high horse.

This is a pretty big misunderstanding of who runs the state legislator and who gets 'favorable' treatment. Rural county politicians rule Pennsylvania. PA is a state governed by landmass and not people. Hence why the GOP has held the majority in Harrisburg for a generation even though the Democrats have far more registered voters. SEPA is the democrat stronghold of the state, and democrats pass essentially nothing in Harrisburg:


And to be clear, this conversation started with you stating:

Originally Posted by pj3000

You mean kinda like how Harrisburg's location in the SE quadrant, less than 100 miles from Philadelphia contributes to the rest of PA being worse off due to that fact?

To act like Philadelphia (and it's suburbs that only exist because of the city) are a 'drag' on the state is absurd and untrue.

As far as Turnpike tolls go, whoever uses it the most, pays for it the most. If you don't like it, take it up with the market economy.

Funny how unincorporated areas of PA rely on the state police as the local police force, but yet, pay no extra tax for the privileged service.

Gov. Wolf dropped the calls for the tax on state police force from the budget this year, because covid funds paid were used to pay for it:
In his final budget, Wolf drops his calls for State Police fee. But the problem remains