3 ms·

I've worked with a lot of ex-federal employees that left mostly due to cost of living in DC (need a married couple both working with a federal salary to live an

by rhexs 10y ago

I've worked with a lot of ex-federal employees that left mostly due to cost of living in DC (need a married couple both working with a federal salary to live anywhere close to work) and not enjoying the incredible sprawl of the area. Always fantasized about government jobs being relocated to less populated areas. Would be a great chance to develop better planned cities or help rejuvenate areas. Just a fantasy though. About as likely as high-speed rail from SF to NY.

achamayou 10y ago
It's been done before, check out Brasilia, Yamoussoukro, Naypyidaw more recently. I think it's fair to say that it's not been a massive success, and that federal employees generally did/do everything they could to stay in the old capital. Aside from the fact that the entertainment and cultural options available tend to be limited, distance from the rest of the family and friends, as well as the perspective of being tied very strongly to a single employer are usually unappealing. You run a real risk of losing anyone senior/competent, and keeping only the most junior of your staff, who have no other option but to relocate. To stand any chance of success, I would think that the process needs to be fairly gradual, with good transport connections with the historical centres of activity.
- spangry 10y ago
  The process also needs integrity. I've seen a few of these proposals now. The good ones have a clear rationale for relocation: the Australian Federal Treasury, for instance, is moving a sizeable chunk of their workforce from the capital (Canberra, population ~400,000) to Sydney (population ~5m). Why? Because the financial industry in Australia, and many regulators in the Treasury portfolio, are based in Sydney. Seems logical to do this if you agree that lower-level, person-person connections are valuable (I think they are). The bad ones have no clear rationale, and co-incidentally the relocation target happens to be a marginal electorate in some regional area...
- maxerickson 10y ago
  DC itself is an example of a new planned city for a government capital. It just happens to be pretty old (for a US city).
  - achamayou 10y ago
    Yes, but it was created from scratch rather than relocated from a pre-existing well-established capital. It was also set up relatively close to the large cities at that time, unlike the examples I've given, or a location deep in the Midwest.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      The majority of the Midwest is within 200 miles of a major population center. And then any effort to establish more government offices would tend to choose areas at least nearby existing centers. (You can check this with chains like Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago-St Louis-Kansas City; each interval is less than 300 miles) I don't disagree that it would need to be an incremental process.
      - achamayou 10y ago
        It sounds like we agree completely then, 200/300 miles is just the kind of distance that a high-speed train is perfect for.
flurdy 10y ago
This was done in Norway some years ago. With mixed success. The government departments lost a most of their key people whom had no interest to uproot their kids and their own future career from the Oslo area. Especially as some department moved to some very small provincial fringe towns where future opportunities are limited. Departments moving to larger towns (Stavanger/Bergen/Trondheim) was probably less affected. And it did result in very large increases in travel budgets as meetings still mostly had to be held in Oslo (airport) with other departments and companies. Though in theory it was a move I supported. To help decentralise and support local economy but also so e.g. fisheries department actually being in an area where fishing is important probably affect their policies etc. But it does come with a cost, they miss the quick collaboration across department and other industries, and most importantly reduced staff contribution in the (potentially very long) transitional period until new local competent people are up to speed. I think a lot of staff did not move and ended up working from home for parts of every week for a few transitional years before moving full time or most likely eventually a suitable person could replace them.

by rhexs 10y ago

achamayou 10y ago

It's been done before, check out Brasilia, Yamoussoukro, Naypyidaw more recently. I think it's fair to say that it's not been a massive success, and that federal employees generally did/do everything they could to stay in the old capital. Aside from the fact that the entertainment and cultural options available tend to be limited, distance from the rest of the family and friends, as well as the perspective of being tied very strongly to a single employer are usually unappealing. You run a real risk of losing anyone senior/competent, and keeping only the most junior of your staff, who have no other option but to relocate. To stand any chance of success, I would think that the process needs to be fairly gradual, with good transport connections with the historical centres of activity.

spangry 10y ago
The process also needs integrity. I've seen a few of these proposals now. The good ones have a clear rationale for relocation: the Australian Federal Treasury, for instance, is moving a sizeable chunk of their workforce from the capital (Canberra, population ~400,000) to Sydney (population ~5m). Why? Because the financial industry in Australia, and many regulators in the Treasury portfolio, are based in Sydney. Seems logical to do this if you agree that lower-level, person-person connections are valuable (I think they are). The bad ones have no clear rationale, and co-incidentally the relocation target happens to be a marginal electorate in some regional area...
maxerickson 10y ago
DC itself is an example of a new planned city for a government capital. It just happens to be pretty old (for a US city).
- achamayou 10y ago
  Yes, but it was created from scratch rather than relocated from a pre-existing well-established capital. It was also set up relatively close to the large cities at that time, unlike the examples I've given, or a location deep in the Midwest.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The majority of the Midwest is within 200 miles of a major population center. And then any effort to establish more government offices would tend to choose areas at least nearby existing centers. (You can check this with chains like Cleveland-Detroit-Chicago-St Louis-Kansas City; each interval is less than 300 miles) I don't disagree that it would need to be an incremental process.
    - achamayou 10y ago
      It sounds like we agree completely then, 200/300 miles is just the kind of distance that a high-speed train is perfect for.

flurdy 10y ago

This was done in Norway some years ago. With mixed success. The government departments lost a most of their key people whom had no interest to uproot their kids and their own future career from the Oslo area. Especially as some department moved to some very small provincial fringe towns where future opportunities are limited. Departments moving to larger towns (Stavanger/Bergen/Trondheim) was probably less affected. And it did result in very large increases in travel budgets as meetings still mostly had to be held in Oslo (airport) with other departments and companies. Though in theory it was a move I supported. To help decentralise and support local economy but also so e.g. fisheries department actually being in an area where fishing is important probably affect their policies etc. But it does come with a cost, they miss the quick collaboration across department and other industries, and most importantly reduced staff contribution in the (potentially very long) transitional period until new local competent people are up to speed. I think a lot of staff did not move and ended up working from home for parts of every week for a few transitional years before moving full time or most likely eventually a suitable person could replace them.