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.
Incredibly ignorant. South Georgia as it's own state would be the poorest state in the country. I seriously doubt many folks down there are in favor of this. South Georgia has little to offer- horrible climate, insects, few jobs, poor schools, etc.
Incredibly ignorant. South Georgia as it's own state would be the poorest state in the country. I seriously doubt many folks down there are in favor of this. South Georgia has little to offer- horrible climate, insects, few jobs, poor schools, etc.
Maybe take Northern Florida & the panhandle.. Name Jacksonville as the captial.
Look at North Carolina.. similar population to Georgia and similar GDP. Sure Charlotte is the biggest city but it does not overshadow the rest of the state like Atlanta does to Georgia. The wealth and economic development is more spread out in North Carolina.
There are several other differences though....
North Carolina has more traditional old money and more people/wealth spread out throughout the state from the old days. Similar to Virginia. That old money comes across a very spread out rural culture
That is a critical difference from the lower South & Western South and the traditionally wealthier upper South where less old money is present throughout the state.
The South really grew out of Virginia/Maryland and grew South and Westward as land became scarce.
The reason Atlanta, and to an extent Georgia, grew as it is did is from the critical location on the Eastern Continental Divide that is the northern most point that critical transportation connections and freight can interchange between the Midwest, the Northeast, and the South without a mountain crossing.
If it wasn't for that Atlanta wouldn't have found the natural demand it did and we'd be more similar to a slightly larger Alabama, not North Carolina.
Alabama, Mississippi and the rest of the lower South has struggled to find any type of widespread success in urban areas. Atlanta is the major exception and to a smaller extent Nashville in Tennessee.
North Carolina takes advantage of older money and closer proximity to an increasingly too expensive DC area. That brought them growth in private universities earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AUGnative
The infrastructure in NC also supports and encourages several large metros instead of just one. In Georgia, all roads lead to Atlanta. There have been many promises over the years to connect the second tier metro areas but all that has happened is just widened highways with multiple stoplights. Access to interstate/limited access highways, airports, and high speed internet is crucial to economic development in this age.
I can certainly understand the frustration from rural Georgia, but its not just rural Georgia, most of the second tier cities are also not seeing the big economic growth that supposedly the state is enjoying. We essentially have a system in Georgia where the not just the infrastructure and economic development is centered in Metro Atlanta, but also the political capital is centered there is well. There is a reason why Chicago and New York City are not the capitals of their respective states.
The state (and in part Atlanta's money spent outside the Atlanta area) has done far more than you make it seem.
Airports have been funded in most of the second tier metros. The problem isn't facilities, but demand. Yes, they aren't large airports, but at the current moment it is demand not facility preventing a larger scale growth. Cities are having issues attracting more flights/airlines and airlines are often looking for an operational subsidy of some type.
The GRIP program and the fall line freeway program has done far more than you make it seem.
It is a 4 lane road with a median on most of the route. It has a few limited traffic lights and bypasses most town centers. Most speeds limits are kept at a high 65mph, however most of it is free-flow without obstruction and relatively traffic free. This is at near interstate speeds and is mostly free-flowing.
It allows for the uninhibited movement of freight between Georgia's secondary cities with relatively little time lost, than if it was built to interstate standards.
The roads easily handle the amount of traffic, but the demand is limited. These roads also don't stop at connecting Georgia's mid-tier cities, but seeked to get almost all rural areas within 20 miles of a 4 lane road with a median.
Driving between Augusta and Macon and Savannah isn't that bad or slow and plenty of capacity exists for growth. Same can be said for Columbus to Macon.
The main problem is people seem to be hung-up on interstate-envy having that thick blue line on a map.
And all that was built in an era where Atlanta doubled in size and per capita transportation spending in Atlanta from the state was at all time low, even compared to our similar size peer cities.
Hopefully Savannah's growth will be able to bring more prosperity for rural Georgia. Do do think Atlanta and state should support building the infrastructure for internet. .
Savannah is a metro area of 390,000, with four colleges, a growing airport, 5 TV stations, businesses, the port, and tourism. Savannah had zero links to rural Georgia when I was growing up there 50 years ago -- well, except for the Farmers' Market. It is even more distant from rural Georgia now.
This secession "movement" will go nowhere. (Even if it somehow did, no Georgia city would agree to be the capital of a new South Georgia.) As other posters said, this is all public relations: "We need some help, Georgia statehouse!" I do understand that.
Maybe a better effort would be a push to move the state capital to Macon.
It was decided in 1868 to move the capital from Milledgeville (a beautiful town of decent size and still a good site in middle Georgia) to upstate Atlanta. This was a power grab mostly orchestrated by Atlanta's business community during the railroad boom, which lobbied for the capital city and (surprise! surprise!) won.
Most states have their capitals in the largest city only when it's centrally located (or close enough to the center so that it's relatively accessible to legislators). Otherwise, it's just centrally located, period. Montgomery is still capital of Alabama, Baton Rouge is still the capital of Louisiana (despite N'orlins), Frankfurt is still capital of Kentucky (despite Louisville), Sacramento is capital of California despite San Francisco (the state's premier city at the time). Georgia broke with standard US practice, and -- the textbook example of why states have centrally located capitals to begin with -- Atlanta turned its back on the rest of the state, promoted its fortunes at the expense of other Georgia cities, and allowed the rest of the state to become underdeveloped. It is a fact.
I think an effort to relocate the capital would be more practical than a secession movement which would never happen. Obviously Macon is the most likely contender as it is pretty much in the geographic center of the state and easily accessible.
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.
