Initiative to split California into three states qualifies for ballot (Los Angeles: purchase, DMV)

[bryan85]

The best three way split for California would be 1- illegals, 2- gays, and 3- others. #3 would be the smallest group of people.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by bryan85

The best three way split for California would be 1- illegals, 2- gays, and 3- others. #3 would be the smallest group of people.

I see you're from Georgia, so we can't fault you for having an outsider's view of our state, but that version of California is a false image that the media propagandizes and which bears no resemblance to reality. I'm sorry to see you buying into it and hope you'll see for yourself one day that California is not that different from anywhere else, except with more scenery and a better climate. :-)

[janellen]

Here's a good article and a map on this. Upon looking at the map, it seems to be a good geographical split. They are somewhat distinct geographies: the dry agricultural region, the coastal belt, and the northern wetter region. Politically speaking, since California is on its way to becoming a one-party state, its kind of a moot point. I wouldn't be totally opposed to this kind of split.

3 Californias? Billionaire's Plan to Split California into 3 ...[LEFT]NBC Bay Area[/LEFT]
[LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[Vic Romano]

Originally Posted by Mike930

Yes I understand that. I also don’t think it will happen with the vote, legislative approval process and the inevitable court challenges.

I think it’s the idea that it got this far that could make these politicians think twice. They’re used to doing whatever they want. Now they have a federal lawsuit against the idiotic sanctuary state law and California cities and counties joining the lawsuit. The initiative to repeal the gas tax has a chance of qualifying and now this.

Maybe, just maybe it’ll send a message that they can’t just do anything without some backlash.

I would like to at least see the politicians get a really good scare. Pleeze???

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Vic Romano

I would like to at least see the politicians get a really good scare. Pleeze???

You want a good scare? Vote every politician out of office regardless of party. That would do it.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

I have to admit that I'm tired of the Deadwood in the Democrat party here. Those lazy incumbents who don't have to worry about getting reelected year after year, like Congresswoman Anna Eshoo in my district. She's a disgrace, and once again, nobody is running against her. But, i won't vote for her, even though I'm a registered Democrat.

This country desperately needs new young blood. Just look at the Facebook hearings. Jeez, the old geezers interviewing Zuckerberg don't even know what facebook is.

And not only young blood, but can we have a little diversity please? Old white geezers = Washington DC.

As to splitting the state? Sure. I'll stay in northern CA where we'd own all the water.

[tstieber]

What I don't like about this proposal is exactly what it says in the article, namely that the Bay Area is the economic Powerhouse of the state, while the agricultural areas are poor. Which means we would basically be splitting off the rich from the poor. I don't know that people from Monterey feel super connected to people in Los Angeles. And I'm almost certain that people up in Humboldt County, where there have been movements to secede from the rest of California and join Southern Oregon in a mythical state of Jefferson, will want the City Slickers of the urban Bay Area dictating anything to them either. Those people feel very disconnected from areas farther south and want to preserve a small town and rural lifestyle. And I don't think people in San Diego feel particularly connected to Fresno or the eastern Sierras. Truly, the state is far too diverse and large to Eden break it into just three areas, as even each of those three areas is still very diverse and could be further split. I think most people in the state see California as what it is, namely the sum of its parts, a patchwork of a dozen or more unique micro regions that are all united by a common history and defined by geographical boundaries. The motivation for the split doesn't come from the people, and believe me, a tech billionaire isn't doing this to do any of us any favors. He's simply trying to split off the richest part of the state from the rest for the economic benefit of the rich.

The big headache would be having to create two entirely new state governments with all new infrastructure: DMV departments, agricultural Bureaus, state governments, real estate licensing boards, State Bar associations, court systems, school systems, you name it. A tremendous amount of expense and bureaucracy would be created, and of course, it's already in place in Sacramento so that the wealthy part of California does not have to deal with it, only the new States would.

I do agree that our State politicians have it way too easy and are resting on their laurels. But I don't think that tripling our bureaucracy is the answer.

[shooting4life]

It won’t happen because it would shift the balance too much in the US senate. The federal government would not sign off on it. Any split would need to be neutral in political power in the senate to happen. You would have to add 4 states from CA, basically two rural, one Bay Area and one SoCal to have any shot of actually happening.

This is just wasting money.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by tstieber

The big headache would be having to create two entirely new state governments with all new infrastructure: DMV departments, agricultural Bureaus, state governments, real estate licensing boards, State Bar associations, court systems, school systems, you name it. A tremendous amount of expense and bureaucracy would be created, and of course, it's already in place in Sacramento so that the wealthy part of California does not have to deal with it, only the new States would.

Not really. There are DMV offices, Bureaus and state assembly reps in all of those areas. All you would do is split them into their representative areas and pick a central HQ. People are acting like that's the difficult part.

The REAL difficult part is how water rights would be handled, dumping rights, how shipping would be handled, pension payments, and dropping or adopting new laws. For instance the State of Jefferson and new "SoCal" would be anti-sanctuary city, and more than likely anti-union. Those would be the biggest challenges but still not insurmountable.

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by tstieber

What I don't like about this proposal is exactly what it says in the article, namely that the Bay Area is the economic Powerhouse of the state, while the agricultural areas are poor. Which means we would basically be splitting off the rich from the poor. I don't know that people from Monterey feel super connected to people in Los Angeles. And I'm almost certain that people up in Humboldt County, where there have been movements to secede from the rest of California and join Southern Oregon in a mythical state of Jefferson, will want the City Slickers of the urban Bay Area dictating anything to them either. Those people feel very disconnected from areas farther south and want to preserve a small town and rural lifestyle. And I don't think people in San Diego feel particularly connected to Fresno or the eastern Sierras. Truly, the state is far too diverse and large to Eden break it into just three areas, as even each of those three areas is still very diverse and could be further split. I think most people in the state see California as what it is, namely the sum of its parts, a patchwork of a dozen or more unique micro regions that are all united by a common history and defined by geographical boundaries. The motivation for the split doesn't come from the people, and believe me, a tech billionaire isn't doing this to do any of us any favors. He's simply trying to split off the richest part of the state from the rest for the economic benefit of the rich.

The big headache would be having to create two entirely new state governments with all new infrastructure: DMV departments, agricultural Bureaus, state governments, real estate licensing boards, State Bar associations, court systems, school systems, you name it. A tremendous amount of expense and bureaucracy would be created, and of course, it's already in place in Sacramento so that the wealthy part of California does not have to deal with it, only the new States would.

I do agree that our State politicians have it way too easy and are resting on their laurels. But I don't think that tripling our bureaucracy is the answer.

The Democrat quoted in the article said the same thing. The answer to problems here is not to triple the bureaucracy.

Originally Posted by shooting4life

It won’t happen because it would shift the balance too much in the US senate. The federal government would not sign off on it. Any split would need to be neutral in political power in the senate to happen. You would have to add 4 states from CA, basically two rural, one Bay Area and one SoCal to have any shot of actually happening.

This is just wasting money.

Spot on. There’s bound to be legal challenges if this passes. The initiative website even acknowledges legal and political challenges. They estimate years for this to happen. I estimate never.