BREAK UP: Will California splinter into 6 states? Voters, Congress could soon decide

Mr. Draper has shown that he is willing to put his money where his mouth is: He sank $20 million into Proposition 38, a 2000 initiative to create a state-funded private-school voucher system. That measure lost by 71 percent to 29 percent.

Asked how much he plans to spend on the initiative, Mr. Draper said “as little as possible, but I will make sure it gets on the ballot so that Californians have a chance to make this a reality.”

investor gives life to effort to split california

I actually think that this could be a good thing. Though i shudder to think of a state called"'Silicon Valley". That just smacks of people of wealth.

What say you denizons of ATS?

reply to post by TDawgRex


Mr Draper likes to waste his money. It will never work, water issues are huge, so is the tax base.

reply to post by TDawgRex


It sort of makes sense. That's the point of states in the first place, so that there isn't one government with all the power. There seems to be a certain number of people that can be managed by one power and over that you start making mistakes that affect too many people.

I don't think it's a realistic idea though. Why would a state with all the power it has allow itself to be split into smaller pieces? I'm wondering if his motive is to help things be more manageable and better represented as the different areas they are or is he trying to live in the "successful" areas while cutting off the other pieces?

I don't really know anything about Californian issues so I guess that's all I can say about that.

reply to post by Dustytoad


It's part of the current split between urban/rural. Very often rural folks find themselves governed disproportionately by urban folks, and their concerns are ignored.

For example, everyone in government just looooves electric cars, but they are completely impractical for anyone who lives in the country. It's the disparity between urban and rural representation and the way that urban ideology ignores the very real needs and concerns of rural people that leads that trend. Gun control and gun rights is another. For a rural lifestyle, a firearm is very much an indispensable tool for several reasons, not just the self-defense that everyone talks about. There are others.

Urban people love to get away to the "charming," "rustic," and "quaint" rural backwaters, but they do everything they can to kill them with their governing policies.

Is it any wonder rural people want to break away from the governing influence of the big cities?

I wonder if Congress would take to the idea of adding 10 seats to the Senate. I suspect No.

ketsuko
reply to post by Dustytoad

 

It's part of the current split between urban/rural. Very often rural folks find themselves governed disproportionately by urban folks, and their concerns are ignored.

For example, everyone in government just looooves electric cars, but they are completely impractical for anyone who lives in the country. It's the disparity between urban and rural representation and the way that urban ideology ignores the very real needs and concerns of rural people that leads that trend. Gun control and gun rights is another. For a rural lifestyle, a firearm is very much an indispensable tool for several reasons, not just the self-defense that everyone talks about. There are others.

Urban people love to get away to the "charming," "rustic," and "quaint" rural backwaters, but they do everything they can to kill them with their governing policies.

Is it any wonder rural people want to break away from the governing influence of the big cities?

I think that you have pretty much much hit the nail on the head.

Most rural folk are ok with city folk....as long as they leave after their vacation. But if they decide to move there...they have another think coming.

There have been something like seventy different proposals to split California and many other proposals to split other states. For example, one oft-heard proposal is to take Washington and Oregon and split them vertically into an eastern agrarian state and a western metropolitan state. These proposals rarely go anywhere. The last split was West Virginia from Virginia during the Civil War which, without the war, never would have happened. It's just that the North liked the idea to hurt the South and the South couldn't do anything about it.

But to California, specifically, how would you like to see 10 senators from California? That's fair, right? And that's the basic reason why even of California "voted for it," the national government would have to give approval, and they never would. This is just a pipe dream of a billionaire who thinks way too much of himself and his importance. But we can turn it into an ATS precognitive thread if you want:

It's not gonna happen.

reply to post by schuyler


You say never, but then you mention VA/WVA which happened only because of war.

Well, we live in interesting and very bitterly divided times. The last time we were this divided was during the same war that saw the break up of the Virginias.

TDawgRex
What say you denizons of ATS?

It is 'talk' ... like this ... that will lead to real reforms in the US. All of the other hullabaloo, is just that.

All-in-all, this proposal has a snowball's chance in Hell ... but it's been awful quiet lately, hasn't it? First Colorado, now Kali ... heard some real opposition to the dominance of NYC and Chicago over their respective states. Something's afoot.

I am all for it.

The city democrats run the state and stop jobs in the rural areas.

Then you also have the tree huggers that mostly live in the cities that also stop growth.

Most of the rural areas are redneck and vote GOP and we would love to have our rights back.

Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein can take there parts of the state and run them into the ground.

Plus we can take back our water from LA calif.

We have millions of acres of prime farmland in Inyo and Mono counties that are wasted by the water theft of the city of LA.

It's a nice idea...BUT:


Beyond the obvious political ramifications, there's this:

“Also, supporters of secession would have to deal with uncertainties, like how would you set up the new governments, and who would pay for it,” said Mr. Pitney. “Economic arguments tend to be the death of secession movements. You lose the economies of scale.”

Who will pay for all of this? How do these 'new states' create revenue for themselves, pay for the existing debt? How does that get divided?!

It's all a little too much. If it was to split the state in 2 or 3, that would be more feasible.

But 6?

Pipe Dream.

~Tenth

Oh please..let this be true and see it happen. Splitting California 2 ways will make it weaker in national influence. Splitting it more? Oh I can support that...from outside the state. It'll SO TOTALLY dilute California's near ridiculous influence on national policy for things like product changes, fuel mileage and all things trucking related, we'll never be screwed in 47 states again for the will of just ONE state that wants something.

This would be the best thing I could imagine happening ...and oh, sorry California..it may not work out well there ..but the rest of the nation will appreciate the changes.

reply to post by ketsuko


I agree about disparities in representation. Sometimes the rural communities get the shaft. But more Americans are moving towards urban centers than towards rural areas and the urban growth rate is about 3% higher in urban areas than that of the national growth rate. I also think that some urban populations are exercising more rural sentiments in their politics as those populations change.

Population movement is a natural way that political movement occurs. In Colorado, the state voted Republican in 2008 and mostly it was the large population centers along the front range that went Democratic, but in 2012 several of the central mountain counties went Democratic, which might suggest a population move out of large population centers by people seeking a less urban lifestyle. I think some of that population movement also can disturb the traditional community sentiments. But isn't that how growth works? It isn't always a peaceful copacetic process. American society has long been moving away from its traditional agricultural based economy and agricultural conglomerates and gov't subsidies are the biggest reasons.

In the 70's we railed against the Texans coming to Denver looking for oil interests, and Denver grew. Then it was the Californians in the 80's-90's to get away from their sprawl and the communications boom. More recently, the East Coasters have moved in for medical industry, lifestyle and to get away from the East Coast (for this I am happy, as it brought my wife to me!). Each time I somewhat resented the invasion on my little town, but also enjoyed the benefits of a growing city.

To stay on topic, I think the idea of breaking up states is fanciful to think about and not based in reality. It would take some major overhauling of our laws.

ketsuko
reply to post by schuyler

 

You say never, but then you mention VA/WVA which happened only because of war.

Well, we live in interesting and very bitterly divided times. The last time we were this divided was during the same war that saw the break up of the Virginias.

And it was a very straightforward split that just happened to be right on the border. How does that equate to splitting California into five pieces which all are part of the same country? It's not a parallel situation at all, and the larger point is that the Federal government, in the form of Congress, would need to give its approval. Given that much of the rest of the country resents California's undue influence already, do you see California getting 5 times as many senators? I don't think so, and that's why

it's not gonna happen.

reply to post by schuyler


These things keep happening more and more. I wouldn't doubt seeing it happening before to long. Plenty of concervatives in Cali, just like Colorado. And you can say the same about liberals in Texas. It'll probably happen in our lifetime as things become more polarized.

tothetenthpower
It's a nice idea...BUT:


Beyond the obvious political ramifications, there's this:

“Also, supporters of secession would have to deal with uncertainties, like how would you set up the new governments, and who would pay for it,” said Mr. Pitney. “Economic arguments tend to be the death of secession movements. You lose the economies of scale.”

Who will pay for all of this? How do these 'new states' create revenue for themselves, pay for the existing debt? How does that get divided?!

It's all a little too much. If it was to split the state in 2 or 3, that would be more feasible.

But 6?

Pipe Dream.

~Tenth

Not a pipe dream at all. The laws are already in place. We went from 13 colonies to 50 states. It's been done plenty of times before. Why not now?

Who says it can’t be done…other than the nay sayers. I’m optimistic on this.

I agree about the rural dscussion.Colorado has seen an influx of people from occupied territories who want to try to screw our sate up in their own image. Most of them LIVED in Boulder with was damaged severely last year.I guess God isn't too crazy about them either.

reply to post by TDawgRex

Not a pipe dream at all. The laws are already in place. We went from 13 colonies to 50 states. It's been done plenty of times before. Why not now?

Because 200 years ago each 'colony' could afford to do such things, or were afforded the credit to do it after the fact.

The same cannot be said today. Nobody is going to give those 'welfare' sections of California any kind of decently termed financial aid. So even if they do end up splitting, the economic problems they will face with debt vs revenue would not make it worth the head ache.

Who says it can’t be done…other than the nay sayers. I’m optimistic on this.

I'd like to be, but they'll need an economic plan for any support to be lent by your average Californian. The rural areas may complain now about SF and LA, but without them there to prop them up with the little wealth they do have, you'd find quite a host of issues.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower

The debate over the State of Jefferson often boils down to a balance sheet. Laufer's tally from the state Department of Finance concluded that California's four northernmost counties take in $20 million or so more per year from Sacramento than they provide.

At a recent Board of Supervisors forum, Tehama County Chief Administrator Bill Goodwin estimated a loss of $5 million in public works funding annually and a 75% drop in education funding were the county to join in, and he hadn't begun to calculate the impact on health and social service programs.

Then there are logistics: What to do about the state prison in Crescent City? Who gets the Caltrans equipment left behind? And what of steep out-of-state tuition Jeffersonians would be forced to pay in California's higher education system?

But Baird and others are convinced that a "more favorable regulatory environment" could help them boost a region with some of California's highest poverty and unemployment rates.

--Source

I have to agree with you on the financial end of the issue. The urban areas are where the wealth is concentrated in California. The cities are subsidizing the poorer rural northern counties. I cannot imagine what "Baird and others" think they can deregulate to create a "more favorable regulatory environment".

TDawgRex

Not a pipe dream at all. The laws are already in place. We went from 13 colonies to 50 states. It's been done plenty of times before. Why not now?

Who says it can’t be done…other than the nay sayers. I’m optimistic on this.

Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions reads: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

In 1869 supreme court Texas V White, secession was ruled unconstitutional, however, the Court's decision recognized some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States".

I don't see legislature consenting nor another revolution, the numbers don't exist.