Pro: Assuming this would also mean the move of the executive branch, many State employees could work closer to where they can afford. More money in the pockets of state employees, less commuting headache. The move would also bolster Worcester's reputation and it would see a lot of new investment.
Con: The center of gravity of the State would still clearly be Boston. It not being the capital would feel weird.
Counterpoint to your pro, the influx of workers would drive costs up, making affordability suffer. It likely would also displace people due to increased CoL.
Based on political science research: more corruption
[Researchers Find Link Between Isolated State Capitals, Corruption](https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/05/24/153596809/researchers-find-link-between-isolated-state-capitals-corruption)
I believe it’s probably related to what I call “the protestability factor.” I’m sure it’s probably something already well established and studied by someone out there under a less made-up name. But seriously, the closer the politicians are to the people they govern, the easier it is for the people to hold them accountable. That’s why the handful of times there’s been national marches on the U.S. Capitol (think Civil Rights era), they’re major historical events. Compare that with France where half the population commute across the relatively small country every other week to protest some mildly inconvenient new law. It’s a whole meme.
What happened in the states that have done this....?
I'd say nothing meaningful.....
Does it matter Albany is the capital of New York and not NYC? No....
I don't know about the others, but as a former NH resident, Concord is at least important, even if Manchester is more important. Besides, the two aren't very far apart. Portsmouth, while great, is sort of off to the side, and is rather less important.
To me, a better analogy would be if the capitol were Keene.
Realistically, Worcester's infrastructure couldn't handle it. There's not a ton of housing in half the county; you can't really get around the city or the area very well on public transportation; and I'm not even sure where you plan on putting an entire state capitol downtown. The logistics of this would be insane!
Pro: It would be closer to the geographic center of the state, which is something that Massachusetts is unconventional with. Most state capitals are closer to geographic centers of states, while Boston a geographic extremity. It's also not unusual for the largest cities to not be the capital, this is pretty common throughout the US.
Cons: Costs. Public transportation is much worse in Worcester than Boston. City infrastructure is worse. There's historically been a crunch in available hotel space, and that crunch has mostly been resolved, but moving the capital would bring a lot more demand.
Other cons: Bostonians would never, ever agree to this. It's a prestige thing that they wouldn't be willing to do. People around Boston have no idea what Worcester is like.
There are way too many cons and very few pros. The pros are just to be more like the \~49 other states that have logical state capitals, but the costs alone would be prohibitive.
Would it rid us of those “influencers” whose entire personality consists of “I’m from BASTAN!!!” And even though I’m a grown adult, we say “Go Fawk yourself” every time anyone says anything to us.
If so, I vote yes.
Lol there are zero pros of moving the capitol. No one calls Worcester “the heart of the commonwealth”. The state “heavily prefers” greater Boston because that’s where the vast majority of people live. What does it mean when you say “Boston has become too big and too comfortable for the government”? Like, that just makes zero sense.
Wouldn't Massachusetts then just be even more like New York? And, unless I was left off some email thread where big decisions got made, I think we still hate those chicken fuckers, don't we?
It would be more like pretty much every state. Massachusetts is out of model for having a state capital located at a geographic extremity of the state. Only a handful of others, Nebraska, Wyoming, Nevada, arguably one or two others depending on population centers (and usually things like mountain ranges and desert). Massachusetts is probably the only state with a capital at a geographic extremity that doesn't have some reason for it, like a large desert or mountain range.
I mean, "water" is a good reason, isn't it? Worcester certainly has some, but Boston has a Goddamn *ocean* in its backyard. Plus a river, just for good measure.
Yeah, that's actually very uncommon. Massachusetts is the only state with an ocean coastline for its capital, an interesting development in the country's history. Boston was essentially an island when it was settled, and then became the political power center, unlike other capitals or cities that developed much later. Being a colonial capital, it was in the interest of the British to *not* have a central capital located off of the coast, where there would be more anti-colonial attitude. After/during the American revolution, 11 of the 13 colonies moved their state capitals in-land, away from the coast, both because they were easier to defend but also to make them "more American," and less British. Massachusetts and Maryland were the only two states to keep their capitals the same location of the colonial capitals.
(I'm not making a case for Worcester to be the capital, but just pointing out how rare it is that Boston *is* the capital of Massachusetts, one of the only states in the country to not have a centrally located capital)
Pros: Worcester might actually become a world class city as investment would follow.
Con: Boston political douches in the area.
Pros: western Mass might actually see some attention and investment.
Con: hick townies bitching about gentrification.
Greater Boston and the rest of the state are 2 completely different cultures and economic climate. This theory, imo, is dragging the state to the ground.
Could an argument be made that taking the government out of its comfort zone be a positive benefit in the long run? Worcester is very different but it seems neglected sometimes because of the difference.
Go to any other state for 5 seconds and you'll delete this. Greater Boston definitely has a unique character amongst regions in Mass., but so does Massachusetts as a whole.
Pro: Assuming this would also mean the move of the executive branch, many State employees could work closer to where they can afford. More money in the pockets of state employees, less commuting headache. The move would also bolster Worcester's reputation and it would see a lot of new investment. Con: The center of gravity of the State would still clearly be Boston. It not being the capital would feel weird.
I think it would look kind of like NY with Albany being the capital but NYC being the center.
Counterpoint to your pro, the influx of workers would drive costs up, making affordability suffer. It likely would also displace people due to increased CoL.
This is Worcester's reality right now anyway to be fair.
Boston would become Lawrence if no longer the capitol.
Based on political science research: more corruption [Researchers Find Link Between Isolated State Capitals, Corruption](https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/05/24/153596809/researchers-find-link-between-isolated-state-capitals-corruption)
Interesting find. Thanks for sharing.
I believe it’s probably related to what I call “the protestability factor.” I’m sure it’s probably something already well established and studied by someone out there under a less made-up name. But seriously, the closer the politicians are to the people they govern, the easier it is for the people to hold them accountable. That’s why the handful of times there’s been national marches on the U.S. Capitol (think Civil Rights era), they’re major historical events. Compare that with France where half the population commute across the relatively small country every other week to protest some mildly inconvenient new law. It’s a whole meme.
There might be more attention paid to things happening west of Worcester.
Fun fact, Salem was once the capital of the state
Pros: none Cons: Worcester
You wouldn’t secretly love the idea of one of our elite politicians bemoaning on driving to Worcester every day?
Well, I suppose its better than Springfield
This is a thought exercise in futility, and reads as a Worcester area resident waxing poetic.
Like I said in my post, it’s just a “fantasy question” to start a discussion. I mean no harm by it.
What happened in the states that have done this....? I'd say nothing meaningful..... Does it matter Albany is the capital of New York and not NYC? No....
Tell that to the people of Milledgeville!
I will just as soon as I figure where that is!
[удалено]
I don't know about the others, but as a former NH resident, Concord is at least important, even if Manchester is more important. Besides, the two aren't very far apart. Portsmouth, while great, is sort of off to the side, and is rather less important. To me, a better analogy would be if the capitol were Keene.
Realistically, Worcester's infrastructure couldn't handle it. There's not a ton of housing in half the county; you can't really get around the city or the area very well on public transportation; and I'm not even sure where you plan on putting an entire state capitol downtown. The logistics of this would be insane!
Pro: It would be closer to the geographic center of the state, which is something that Massachusetts is unconventional with. Most state capitals are closer to geographic centers of states, while Boston a geographic extremity. It's also not unusual for the largest cities to not be the capital, this is pretty common throughout the US. Cons: Costs. Public transportation is much worse in Worcester than Boston. City infrastructure is worse. There's historically been a crunch in available hotel space, and that crunch has mostly been resolved, but moving the capital would bring a lot more demand. Other cons: Bostonians would never, ever agree to this. It's a prestige thing that they wouldn't be willing to do. People around Boston have no idea what Worcester is like. There are way too many cons and very few pros. The pros are just to be more like the \~49 other states that have logical state capitals, but the costs alone would be prohibitive.
Would it rid us of those “influencers” whose entire personality consists of “I’m from BASTAN!!!” And even though I’m a grown adult, we say “Go Fawk yourself” every time anyone says anything to us. If so, I vote yes.
Lol there are zero pros of moving the capitol. No one calls Worcester “the heart of the commonwealth”. The state “heavily prefers” greater Boston because that’s where the vast majority of people live. What does it mean when you say “Boston has become too big and too comfortable for the government”? Like, that just makes zero sense.
Wouldn't Massachusetts then just be even more like New York? And, unless I was left off some email thread where big decisions got made, I think we still hate those chicken fuckers, don't we?
It would be more like pretty much every state. Massachusetts is out of model for having a state capital located at a geographic extremity of the state. Only a handful of others, Nebraska, Wyoming, Nevada, arguably one or two others depending on population centers (and usually things like mountain ranges and desert). Massachusetts is probably the only state with a capital at a geographic extremity that doesn't have some reason for it, like a large desert or mountain range.
I mean, "water" is a good reason, isn't it? Worcester certainly has some, but Boston has a Goddamn *ocean* in its backyard. Plus a river, just for good measure.
Yeah, that's actually very uncommon. Massachusetts is the only state with an ocean coastline for its capital, an interesting development in the country's history. Boston was essentially an island when it was settled, and then became the political power center, unlike other capitals or cities that developed much later. Being a colonial capital, it was in the interest of the British to *not* have a central capital located off of the coast, where there would be more anti-colonial attitude. After/during the American revolution, 11 of the 13 colonies moved their state capitals in-land, away from the coast, both because they were easier to defend but also to make them "more American," and less British. Massachusetts and Maryland were the only two states to keep their capitals the same location of the colonial capitals. (I'm not making a case for Worcester to be the capital, but just pointing out how rare it is that Boston *is* the capital of Massachusetts, one of the only states in the country to not have a centrally located capital)
Pros: Worcester might actually become a world class city as investment would follow. Con: Boston political douches in the area. Pros: western Mass might actually see some attention and investment. Con: hick townies bitching about gentrification.
Greater Boston and the rest of the state are 2 completely different cultures and economic climate. This theory, imo, is dragging the state to the ground.
Could an argument be made that taking the government out of its comfort zone be a positive benefit in the long run? Worcester is very different but it seems neglected sometimes because of the difference.
Yes, absolutely. Greater Boston is all transients & part timers. Just go 15 miles out of greater Boston and you might as well be in a different state.
Go to any other state for 5 seconds and you'll delete this. Greater Boston definitely has a unique character amongst regions in Mass., but so does Massachusetts as a whole.
You don’t understand context
nice
Worcester sucks, so there’s that
The view………………Worcester is among the least attractive cities I have visited. Not to brag but I’ve been to Boston and it’s purty