We had no problem giving statehood to Alaska...or Hawaii...why make a special case to exclude DC?
Because DC
IS a special case. Since this thread is about DC, we can address Puerto Rico another time.
After the US became independent from British rule in the late 1776, the country’s founding leaders desired that the new national capital should be founded on a federal district, and not be a part of any state. The district which was thus created was named after Columbus, and the city after George Washington, the first US president.
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison argued that the nation’s capital should not be within any particular state:
“The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, requires that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it.” Advocates of D.C. statehood argue that the “district” of the nation’s capital would become Capitol Hill, the National Mall, and the White House, while the surrounding area became a new state.
The Cato Institute’s Roger Pilon testified before Congress in 2019:
[The state proposal] would make the federal government dependent on this new independent state, “Washington, D.C.,” for everything from electrical power to water, sewer, snow removal, police and fire protection, and so much else that today is part of an integrated jurisdiction under the ultimate authority of Congress. Nearly every foreign embassy would be beyond federal jurisdiction and dependent mainly on the services of this new and effectively untested state. Ambulances, police and fire equipment, diplomatic entourages, members of Congress, and ordinary citizens would be constantly moving over state boundaries in their daily affairs and in and out of jurisdictions, potentially increasing jurisdictional problems exponentially.
Washington D.C. is a city that is particularly dependent upon the federal government to cover its operating expenses. The federal government pays for the D.C. courts system, and since 2001 all D.C. prisoners are integrated into the federal Bureau of Prisons system. The city does not have a district attorney or state attorney general; the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia prosecutes all serious local crime committed by adults in the District of Columbia. If the District were to become a state, it would have a relationship with the federal government unlike any other, even beyond the factors above. Roughly 27 percent of all District residents work for the federal government, way more than any other state. Roughly 38 percent of all District residents work for government at some level.
The District of Columbia lacks the sorts of things you can find in just about every other state. It has no rural population and the only agriculture is some urban farms and community gardens; the aim is to expand to five acres in the “medium term.” The district has no major airport; Reagan National and Dulles International are in Virginia and Baltimore-Washington is in Maryland. It has no major port and almost no manufacturing. (Nationwide, 8.6 percent of Americans work in manufacturing; in the District, less than one tenth of one percent.)
Washington D.C. is a city that is particularly dependent upon its neighboring states to function. All of the water in the city goes through the Dalecarlia Reservoir on the border with Bethesda, Maryland, run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. All of the city’s solid waste goes to landfills in Virginia, the recyclables go to Maryland. Almost all of the electricity that powers the District comes from other states.
And:
According to some experts, the process for the capital city would only terminate when the 23rd Amendment is repealed– a daunting political task as this would require at least 38 states to agree to the motion. Others say it wouldn't or might not, which probably means the whole thing winds up in court.
IMHO, I do not see this as happening as long as there is a filibuster in the Senate. Nor should it, as described above.
