Should Washington DC be moved for security purposes?

The centers of all three branches of the U.S. federal government are in the District. It also serves as the headquarters for the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization of American States, the Inter-American Development Bank, and other national and international institutions.

The population of the District of Columbia, as of 2005 United States Census Bureau estimates, is 582,049 persons. The Washington Metropolitan Area has more than five million residents.

As of 2002, the federal government accounts for 27% of Washington, D.C.%26#039;s jobs

According to the Census Bureau, the District%26#039;s daytime population is estimated at 982,853.[21] The influx of over 410,000 workers into Washington on a normal business day comprises a 72% increase of the capital%26#039;s normal population

Washington D.C. crime rates (2005) remain among the highest of U.S. cities, and it was most recently ranked as the 13th most dangerous city in the nation (2005). Washington, D.C.%26#039;s crime rate surpasses the rates of L.A. and New York.

Above are the Facts, Below are my questions/problems with the setup

1. Is it not a bad idea to have the centers of all three branches of the US Govt located in the same area? This made since when DC was designed due to communication needs, but in today%26#039;s communication age there is no need to have all branches of the Govt centrally located, in my opinion this is a disaster waiting to happen, when you throw in the world bank, and all other political/financial interest, its just a matter of time until DC is attacked again.

2. Traffic in DC is INSANE, the WORST in the country, and above tells you why the population of the district more than doubles during work hours. This is because Most of DC is still unlivable to the people who work there because of crime and demographics. They are forced to live outside of DC for safety concerns and commute in daily.

3. DC crime is unreal, when you consider it%26#039;s crime is worse than LA and NY but it has a population of only 500,000, its totally insane, the entire city is a haven for criminals/gangs/drugs.

My proposal:

Do not have every major never center to the US Govt located in the same general area, Wyoming is wide open, use it. Moving each branch to it%26#039;s own separate and sparsely populated area would not only improve the safety of the federal employees but also boost the local economy without overwhelming it like it has done in DC.

The Federal Govt makes up roughly 30% of the jobs in DC, but off those 30% only .02 percent of those jobs are held by residents of DC. My point is that DC will not collapse if the Federal Government pulls out and moves elsewhere, sure it will take a hit, but in so it will also disperse the gangs and criminals and actually make the %26quot;NEW DC%26quot; a livable community that can sustain itself without federal employees and 50% less traffic.

Opinions?

Should Washington DC be moved for security purposes?rate my professor

I%26#039;m not American, so don%26#039;t take me too seriously :D

I dont think that you should move your capital, as you would loose so much of your heritage. Also you will be showing weakness and the %26quot;threats%26quot; will keep coming.

Anyway - it makes no difference where the government is, a couple of miles isnt going to stop an attack.

Should Washington DC be moved for security purposes?

loan

No, we should just reinforce america with border fences and armed forces and technology to keep out all bad people.|||Great question. I too have always wondered if Washington DC was really safe so close to the east coast.|||Maybe.

Congratulations for doing some real thinking.

But... No matter where the government moves, the Democrats will report it to our enemies, or the News Media, which is also some our enemies.

GOOD QUESTION!!!!|||I worry about it sometimes too, but they honestly couldn%26#039;t do much. Though the crime rate for the city is bad, the Capital is pretty safe as far as it goes. It%26#039;s the home of the President. Military could be there in seconds if they needed them.

But I%26#039;m glad that Fort Knox isn%26#039;t there. That would honestly scare me to death.|||no keep it there, i cant wait to watch it getting bombed or shot up on the telly|||While I cannot talk about the World Bank, IMF, and OAS, I do not see how it would make sense to physically move the Federal Government across the US. Can you just imagine the cost of moving government offices, staff, etc.? We have a deficit that makes such spending a frivolous measure. Also the travel involved between one agency to another would be astronomically expensive, even with the advance of email and teleconferencing.

Also, as someone posted previously, terrorists will target wherever they want, whether it%26#039;s DC, or Terre Haute, IN. Al-Qaida is notorious for coordinating several disparate attacks at once---look at 9/11, the embassy bombings in Africa, or the London bombings.

Traffic and crime are bad here, but you can say the same for Atlanta, Philadelphia, or Houston. Those are typical drawbacks for living in any large city/metro area.There are many safe, popular, and attractive areas inside the city.

Washington is atypical in its employment mix, but for the most part, the city%26#039;s people, and most of the federal employees, lead lives as normal as most others elsewhere across the US.