Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Tribune ran a first page story today about a secession movement in downstate Illinois (https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifes...7ya-story.html). State representative Brad Halbrook (R-Shelbyville) filed a resolution that would make Chicago the nation's 51st state. The Trip suggested that his intension wasn't really about seceding from Illinois as much as it was about kicking Chicago out.
At a meeting he publicized on Facebook to be at a Fairfield Inn in far southern IL Mt. Vernon, he anticipated some 60 or so people to be in attendance. He was unprepared for the 200 or so who showed up.
What are the chances that Halbrook's actions will lead to Chicago (or Chicago +) being our 51st state? I think I would actually be being generous if I said 0.0000%
Halbrook's proposal has all of Cook County as the new state. No mention of the collar counties who I imagine might have some angst about being in what basically would be The State of Downstate Illinois. I doubt Highland Park would prefer being in a state with Shelbyville rather than Glencoe.
This thread is emphatically not about should Chicago be a separate state. The subject has been covered by endless threads. As noted above, there is virtually no chance the motion could be carried to fruition. Any discussion of "should"is not only off topic, but potentially counterproductive.
The context of the movement to secede is part of an urban/rural divide that is happening across the nation. Obviously there are shades of Red and Blue here. Race and ethnicity are part of the 800 pound gorilla in the room (and let's be honest here, it is more like an 800 pound elephant and a 150 pound donkey that prefers calling himself a burro).
This scenario is playing out in California more famously in the notion of splitting the state into three: North California (which would include the Bay Area and thus the libertarian notions of the Silicon Valley), California (a coastal zone that includes Los Angeles) and South California (basically San Diego and a s**tload of sand that runs all the way to the Colorado). A divorce between NYS and NYC is an oft-held discussion. If downstate IL wants to kick out Chicago, the redneck northern 2/3 of Florida would love to do the same to Latin American South Florida. If Chicago were to become a new state, it would as likely be the 101st and it would be the 51st. And what would create it wouldn't be happening in the United States of America..it would be happening in the Bulkanized States of America.
What are your feelings about the thoughts of a divide between people/places is so wide that many would rather separate than stay as one? All in the context of "it ain't gonna happen".
If Illinois does not break down into thirds as in...
Northern Illinois
Central Illinois
Southern Illinois
but instead has the trio of...
Chicago
Suburban Chicago
Downstate IL
How does that all play out? If the one in the "swing portion" is suburbia where does it lean most...toward city or state? For the sake of argument...if we could have looked at this divide as a true three way split in the past, three separate "foes" and no degree of two against one involved, can we say today the dynamics have changed. And by that, I'm suggesting that in this era, Chicagoland may very well be more solidly tied to Chicago in the vast majority of ways, far more so with its connections with downstate IL. And "in this era" we have what we didn't some 60 or so years back: global cities with Chicago being one of them that are just plain a different breed of cat than what surrounds them. And perhaps in that regard, we could definitely look at them as being "global metros".
How does that all play out? If the one in the "swing portion" is suburbia where does it lean most...toward city or state? For the sake of argument...if we could have looked at this divide as a true three way split in the past, three separate "foes" and no degree of two against one involved, can we say today the dynamics have changed. And by that, I'm suggesting that in this era, Chicagoland may very well be more solidly tied to Chicago in the vast majority of ways, far more so with its connections with downstate IL. And "in this era" we have what we didn't some 60 or so years back: global cities with Chicago being one of them that are just plain a different breed of cat than what surrounds them. And perhaps in that regard, we could definitely look at them as being "global metros".
Really interesting discussion. I know that we're not talking about the feasibility : ) But, the push to kick Chicago out - as is with all of the other similar proposals - is extremely misguided. Every data point shows that Chicago is the economic engine for the state and subsidizes people living in rural areas through taxes. Those one or two other states would have a huge wake up call as the problems they face living in an rural area in a globalized age will continue while also losing their revenue sources. Even strong job-center burbs like Deerfield are losing a TON of jobs through relocation.
BUT to the original post, it's hard to say that cutting Illinois into 2 or 3 parts would have any real consequences as our modern state boundaries are arbitrary and antiquated. Even if the suburbs became their own state, it wouldn’t stop people from working and spending time in Chicago the state, because it's the job center and right next them. It would basically be another NW Indiana. It would be a shell game that might redistribute some people and tax money to a new capital in the burbs, but it would have no net change anything in Chicagoland and greater Illinois.
The only way it could MAYBE make a difference is if we made state boundaries around metro areas and parts of Downstate could be grouped with Indy or STL. In that scenario, I could see some of the downstate interests being better aligned - as many people from there already do visit those cities more than Chicago. But, just cutting the state into the city, suburbs, and downstate won't change anything culturally - nor will anyone really come out on top - except for maybe Chicago the state as we could get to keep more tax revenue to help with our defecit.
Last edited by spaceboyzero; 08-05-2019 at 08:13 AM..
this is about as stupid as people who think the earth is flat
downstate would be completely crushed without the money from Chicago
but if you somehow remove the debt and pension albatross from the liabilities side of things and start over as a new government I suppose it would be possible to work... but thats never going to happen
this is about as stupid as people who think the earth is flat
downstate would be completely crushed without the money from Chicago
but if you somehow remove the debt and pension albatross from the liabilities side of things and start over as a new government I suppose it would be possible to work... but thats never going to happen
You hit the nail on the head.
Most of downstate would be gutted from lack of tax revenue. Road repairs and social services cut to the bone. School funding would only be possible with RE tax increases. Bad move all around.
Really interesting discussion. I know that we're not talking about the feasibility : ) But, the push to kick Chicago out - as is with all of the other similar proposals - is extremely misguided. Every data point shows that Chicago is the economic engine for the state and subsidizes people living in rural areas through taxes. Those one or two other states would have a huge wake up call as the problems they face living in an rural area in a globalized age will continue while also losing their revenue sources. Even strong job-center burbs like Deerfield are losing a TON of jobs through relocation.
BUT to the original post, it's hard to say that cutting Illinois into 2 or 3 parts would have any real consequences as our modern state boundaries are arbitrary and antiquated. Even if the suburbs became their own state, it wouldn’t stop people from working and spending time in Chicago the state, because it's the job center and right next them. It would basically be another NW Indiana. It would be a shell game that might redistribute some people and tax money to a new capital in the burbs, but it would have no net change anything in Chicagoland and greater Illinois.
The only way it could MAYBE make a difference is if we made state boundaries around metro areas and parts of Downstate could be grouped with Indy or STL. In that scenario, I could see some of the downstate interests being better aligned - as many people from there already do visit those cities more than Chicago. But, just cutting the state into the city, suburbs, and downstate won't change anything culturally - nor will anyone really come out on top - except for maybe Chicago the state as we could get to keep more tax revenue to help with our defecit.
I don’t think there ever was a suggestion of three separate states. When I made the original post, I was merely suggesting IL does not divide by 3 tu N, C, S, but to Chi, burbs downstate
None if these plans are going anywhere and in the highly unlikely chance that nationally legislation could be enacted that would allow for aa true redrawing of the map, the only sensible thing to do is to allow state “parts” to be put together to make a new state again...never will happen, but if it did, I cannot imagine a state of Chicago without Kenosha and Lake (IN) counties.
To really show how ludicrous it would be to have some sort of New York city-state without it including a nice slice of Jerser and a bit of sw CT
this is about as stupid as people who think the earth is flat
downstate would be completely crushed without the money from Chicago
but if you somehow remove the debt and pension albatross from the liabilities side of things and start over as a new government I suppose it would be possible to work... but thats never going to happen
I’d say the best way to look at it is not dat the absurdity you me mentioned of the state split in two. Look instead at the things that motivate people to want to do it.
The Trib did not make this front page because this silly thing this thing even had a prayer of happening; it did so I believe to understand how different constituencies view what is happening, the things they believe
And in that vein, I am more than happy to hear/read the paradigms of people in sothern IL
That is because in these incredibly Disunited States, we better start listening to each other, trying to understand each other, and stop framing everything as us vs. them. A pipedream? Arguably. But without it, I am fairly sure this 250 years experiment by We The People isn’t going to last.
I think there'd be a better chance of everything south of I-74 voting to secede from Illinois and becoming part of Indiana, Kentucky or Missouri (or some combination thereof). Folks in Chicago would probably love the idea, as would the populace of the southern part of the state. I can see where the Downstaters are coming from, but I don't think they understand the dollar and cents implications of their stated choice. And let's remember, it's probably a vocal minority who's pushing for this, I'd like to see a reliable poll done on it to see the real sentiment.
Personally, as has been stated elsewhere, I myself have a love-hate relationship with living in Cook County, the politics are WAY too Blue for me to live here much longer (let alone the taxes, debt, crime, and real estate issues), I was just on Zillow before this, feeling out the color of the grass on the other side of the fence. Dang shame, because I sure do like my dentist, vet, and some of the local restaurants. So, Downstaters, please don't lump all of us Yankees in with the Leftists you no longer want to be associated with, my own ideologies are probably more closely tied with yours than theirs. Maybe you're thinking that it's time to party like it's 1859? If so, I don't want to get caught behind enemy lines, they'd probably stick me in the soon-to-be-reopened Camp Douglas...
this is about as stupid as people who think the earth is flat
downstate would be completely crushed without the money from Chicago
but if you somehow remove the debt and pension albatross from the liabilities side of things and start over as a new government I suppose it would be possible to work... but thats never going to happen
The United States would be completely crushed without the money from Chicago. And New York. Los Angeles, too. For all the harping some people do over this mass exodus from Illinois due to our tax system is making it impossible to live here, I have another metric I would use for the financial state of a state, one that may be the best for comparative purposes:
The federal government uses a formula based on factors such as the amount of money a state is taking in, what its financial conditions are, other facts (all in measurable terms) that indicates how much money is enriching the state.
Financially successful states are the ones who put more money into federal taxes than they get back from Washington in services. Successful states largely come in various shades of blue. Being a "successful state" is a dubious honor for these states. Such states find that for every $1 they put in, they get $.85 back. New York, California, and...yes.....Illinois are among the success stories.
Unsuccessful states are the ones that get more back from Uncle Sam than they put in. Their color comes in different shades of red. For these states like these, $1 in get, say, $1.15 back. These states may appear like some sort of libertarian paradise as taxes (and services) are kept to a minimum. This group would include Mississippi, Texas, and Arizona. If you're looking for a libertarian paradise, try states like Kentucky, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and my favorite: Somalia.
And Kansas. As in the place famously known as What's the Matter With Kansas. Kansas where Gov. Sam Brownback decided to experiment with low-to-non-existant taxes and trickle down from the top to raise the state's fortunes. Nothing trickled down and Kansas became a basket case.
one note: While others, perhaps most, use red and blue the way they were designed for t.v. station map on election night, that is not the way I am using them. While we don't fall into any sort of "neat categories", I am using the word "red" to mean a progressive perspective, what we call the right; "blue" means liberal/progressive to me. It is the left.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can easily be attached to some sort of a left-right line. The GOP is virtually unrecognizable today and there is little conservative about it. It is reactionary, does not serve conservatives, but serves the ruling class, the 1%, our owners.
The Democratic Party is hardly liberal. And the mainstream centrists still rule the roost. It would be very hard for a liberal or progressive to say "I am a Democrat." We're not. But we do hold our noses and vote from them.
The two differ on social issues. On economics, there is lots of overlap. The Republican Party is unquestionably the most capitalistic main party on the planet. Second place honors very likely goes to the Democrats. Both corporatists. Both know Wall Street well. And couldn't find Main Street on a map.
And neither the Democrats or Republicans fall very well on
The idea is fantasy - but if you want to understand the motivation, they probably look at Iowa or Indiana and think that Illinois minus Chicago could be similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
The federal government uses a formula based on factors such as the amount of money a state is taking in, what its financial conditions are, other facts (all in measurable terms) that indicates how much money is enriching the state.
Which federal agency develops this formula, and could you please provide a link? Thank you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
