What would happen if one day CA divides in two states? (Los Angeles: bankruptcy, earthquakes)

[espizarro]

I am not really that familiar with the political situation in California, but it is well known that SF and LA have heavily liberal mindset people, while I have heard everybody else is kinda conservative.

It simply happens than both LA and SF (metro areas) have 62% of the entire population of the state.

They say there is a small movement to divide California in two states because Sacramento has proven to not be able to take control of the entire state. The mess up seems to continue, although I am not sure if the economy is finally getting some stabilization. Last time I checked there was a major city in the border of bankruptcy, not sure if it was saved or if it indeed, broke. The problem is what would happen if the counties from, say, Los Angeles to Sonoma, including Santa Barbara, Monterey and possibly Sacramento, separate and form a new state (let's call it West California) and the remainder forms another with San Diego being its only large city?

[annonymous0381]

Originally Posted by espizarro

I am not really that familiar with the political situation in California, but it is well known that SF and LA have heavily liberal mindset people, while I have heard everybody else is kinda conservative.

It simply happens than both LA and SF (metro areas) have 62% of the entire population of the state.

They say there is a small movement to divide California in two states because Sacramento has proven to not be able to take control of the entire state. The mess up seems to continue, although I am not sure if the economy is finally getting some stabilization. Last time I checked there was a major city in the border of bankruptcy, not sure if it was saved or if it indeed, broke. The problem is what would happen if the counties from, say, Los Angeles to Sonoma, including Santa Barbara, Monterey and possibly Sacramento, separate and form a new state (let's call it West California) and the remainder forms another with San Diego being its only large city?

For over 100 years in California history there has been talk in breaking California into two states. One of the reasons is because the state is way too large. For example if you live in San Diego its an 8 hour drive or one hour plane flight to Californias capital in Sacramento.

[MIKEETC]

Originally Posted by annonymous0381

For over 100 years in California history there has been talk in breaking California into two states. One of the reasons is because the state is way too large. For example if you live in San Diego its an 8 hour drive or one hour plane flight to Californias capital in Sacramento.

Why is that a problem?

[]

[espizarro]

Maybe it is too far for the government to maintain control, counties basically have to do lots of things without the assistance of the state government

[spotlesseden]

Los Angeles to Sonoma, including Santa Barbara, Monterey and possibly Sacramento, separate and form a new state (let's call it West California)

This doesn't make sense. Sacramento is not even close to LA. Sacramento should go with SF. Maybe two new states can call NorCal and SoCal. Not East and West.

[pch1013]

Oh, not this again.

51st state? Small step forward for long-shot 'South California' plan - CSMonitor.com

[Curmudgeon]

Perhaps everyone would be spared any more threads about it. There must have been at least a dozen thus far.

[Fontucky]

This forum needs a "divide California" containment thread like L.A. has for earthquakes.

[BlackShoe]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Perhaps everyone would be spared any more threads about it. There must have been at least a dozen thus far.

Going back several years with hundreds of posts. Popular, fun topic, but getting a bit tedious, with nothing really new to add.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by espizarro

I am not really that familiar with the political situation in California, but it is well known that SF and LA have heavily liberal mindset people, while I have heard everybody else is kinda conservative.

It simply happens than both LA and SF (metro areas) have 62% of the entire population of the state.

They say there is a small movement to divide California in two states because Sacramento has proven to not be able to take control of the entire state. The mess up seems to continue, although I am not sure if the economy is finally getting some stabilization. Last time I checked there was a major city in the border of bankruptcy, not sure if it was saved or if it indeed, broke. The problem is what would happen if the counties from, say, Los Angeles to Sonoma, including Santa Barbara, Monterey and possibly Sacramento, separate and form a new state (let's call it West California) and the remainder forms another with San Diego being its only large city?

Sacramento is also a very liberal city, while some coastal high-population areas like San Diego and Orange County are very conservative, so it isn't really that simple. Individual city governments going bankrupt doesn't have a whole lot to do with state government, it has more to do with Prop. 13 and the way taxes are collected in California, and the after-effects of our most recent economic collapse. There really isn't any need to split the state in two, nor does it supply any great value or offer any great benefit. The inland part of the state needs the tax base provided by the coastal population, while the coast needs the water and resources of the inland region--plus they love to visit! So why bother splitting the state?

There have been plenty of attempts to split the state--dating back to the 1850s, when Southern plantation owners moving to California wanted to carve us into two states (back when Northern California was the big population center, with 75,000 people in the two biggest cities of San Francisco and Sacramento, and Los Angeles had a population of about 2000)--North California, a free state, and South California, a slave state. It would have preserved the long-standing compromise between free and slave states, but anti-slavery forces won out, and California's political domination by the anti-slavery Republicans was in some ways responsible for Abraham Lincoln's presidency--and thus the start of the Civil War. And then of course there was the short-lived campaign to turn southern Oregon and the northern end of California into the state of Jefferson--they just picked the wrong day to start their marketing efforts (December 7, 1941) and kind of got pushed off the front page by other news.