U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you vote for this idea?
Yes, I think that it just might work! 3 13.04%
Yes, but I don't think that particular plan is effective, I would... 1 4.35%
No, leave things the way they are! 12 52.17%
No, because the idea you put forth is terrible because... 7 30.43%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2012, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Chicago
1,312 posts, read 1,581,488 times
Reputation: 1487

Advertisements

Well, not yet at least. But I could see something like that happening.

It seems like this country is on a path to becoming permanently fractured. And it certainly seems, to me at least, that politics slowly filtering into everyday life has only worked to foster disconnects between people in different parts of the country and even within the same state.

It also appears that there are places that the government doesn't address the real and legitimate needs of people outside cities, and there are places where the government doesn't address the legitimate needs of people living in the cities.

People without an immediate need or desire for something will vote against a measure that does not directly impact their lives. Cities can't see a need for various expenditures in other parts of the state, while the other parts of the state don't see a need for various expenditures in the cities.



So what about this?:

The largest cities in every state would be given the title of "State", and then operate as such. From there the areas surrounding the city will allow the citizens of those smaller cities to vote on whether or not their suburb/surrounding area becomes part of the new state, or remains governed by the current state.

I think this would allow a much more effective way to govern. Cities have different needs and priorities than rural areas of the state, and vice versa. I believe this would give a more cohesive and effective way to govern because it gives the people of the state (who purposefully don't live in the city) a way to live their lives that is not attached to the city. If lawmakers don't have to continually cut, trim, or compromise a new piece of legislation to make one group of people happy, and subsequently get them "on board", real problems can be tackled head-on with full steam ahead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2012, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Denver
14,151 posts, read 19,745,723 times
Reputation: 8803
Many states taxes funds the needs of their city, how will this work now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Chicago
1,312 posts, read 1,581,488 times
Reputation: 1487
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
Many states taxes funds the needs of their city, how will this work now?
On that same note, cities provide tax money to the state.

Any taxes in the city would stay in the city. Taxes collected in the rest of the state would stay in the rest of the state.

Cities will fund their own way. States would continue to do what they do, minus any tax revenue from the new "State".

The taxes currently imposed on East St. Louis don't funnel directly back to Missouri. BUT, if East St. Louis voted to become part of "St. Louis State", then taxes collected there would go to St. Louis, not Missouri or Illinois.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 4,225,932 times
Reputation: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
On that same note, cities provide tax money to the state.

Any taxes in the city would stay in the city. Taxes collected in the rest of the state would stay in the rest of the state.

Cities will fund their own way. States would continue to do what they do, minus any tax revenue from the new "State".

The taxes currently imposed on East St. Louis don't funnel directly back to Missouri. BUT, if East St. Louis voted to become part of "St. Louis State", then taxes collected there would go to St. Louis, not Missouri or Illinois.
Gary, I might point out, Camden, and Newark all are in similar situations...if you're going to apply that rule to East St. Louis, you have to apply it to these as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,153,902 times
Reputation: 7598
The idea is terrible because the burbs of most cities often hold a grudge against the central city and more often than not vote to separate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 03:35 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
2,311 posts, read 4,235,010 times
Reputation: 1430
Annie is right. Oftentimes the surrounding state picks up much of the tax burden for the core cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,212,583 times
Reputation: 36087
No way, and the country is not fractured in that way.

The states have a certain amount of sovereignty, and changing the number of them won't change that. The Senate as a body has empowerment, and changing the number of members won't give it more or less power.

What could possibly be different if the states were smaller and more numerous?

An argument could be made that certain large cities secede into separate statehoods, but that would have absolutely no effect on the nation as a whole, and certainly no effect on anything the US Senate is concerned with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 10:00 PM
 
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 4,225,932 times
Reputation: 998
I personally don't believe the U.S. needs any more states...50 is more than enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 12:19 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
3,133 posts, read 8,332,290 times
Reputation: 1085
The good states that support the country should withdraw and form their own union. They can then give, if they wish, money to crap states like we do to foreign countries like Israel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Chicago
1,312 posts, read 1,581,488 times
Reputation: 1487
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlouisan View Post
Gary, I might point out, Camden, and Newark all are in similar situations...if you're going to apply that rule to East St. Louis, you have to apply it to these as well.
Yes I was.

Because right now, it seems like neither Indiana nor Illinois wants to take responsibility for the city.

And this is also another factor in why I created this thread. If the people of Gary want to be a part of "Indiana", then that's up to them. But if they choose to align with the City of Chicago, then they aren't beholden to "Indiana laws". After all, people seem to think living in a Metropolitan area of a city makes them from "The City", then a measure like this would make Gary a part of Chicago, not a part of, "Indiana that 95% of the State's residents don't care about because it's really just a part of 'Chicago'", that the city is currently relegated to.

If you asked a lot of the residents of Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Evansville, Terre Haute, etc. where they thought Gary belonged, I would venture to guess that a vast majority would say, "In Chicago". And I would also surmise that people Indiana that don't share a close proximity to the city of Chicago would "get" what Gary needs. The people of Whitestown, IN would be against spending extra money (taxes) to fund improvements in Gary's area, especially if those people voting never visited Gary, or Chicago.

So if Camden wants to vote itself in as part of Philadelphia, so be it. Newark part of NYC? So be it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top