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.
OKay guys, this might be news to many of you here on the forum, but it is old news in WA. I wanted to simply clarify that WA is not completely a blue state, and in fact is VERY much a red state east of the cascade mountains. There has been suggestions over the years to make eastern WA a separate state, the divde being the cascade mountains. Prior to this actually coming before the state congress, there had been talk of eastern WA, eastern OR, and the ID panhandle merging as a single state. This is due to the immense cultural and political divide between the eastern and western half of the states. Here is a link if you're curious:
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/v-printer/story/6188592p-6063313c.html (broken link)
So, what do you guys think? Should WA split? It's unlikely, but I'd love to hear some opinions out there...
This idea seems to have been floated around in many states where there is a divide in culture and politics. Here in Virginia, people have toyed around for years with the idea of creating a separate state for Northern Virginia or of making the Greater DC area a state in it's own right encompassing DC and it's Maryland and Virginia suburbs, but these have largely been the subject of op.ed pieces or the opinions of frustrated citizens on the extreme fringes of the right and left, rather than something that they are actually contemplating drawing up legislation about as it seems to be the case in Washington and many other states where I've heard similar debates (California, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, etc.). I am against the fracturing of any state at this point, especially when driven by politics. We're a pretty fractured and polarized country at the moment and I feel that any secession of sorts that is ideologically-driven could start a domino affect and just feed into a greater divide in this country.
EDIT: I just read the article and while it appears that there has been some legislative momentum, it will be unlikely to go through. I'm surprised it even reached that stage as these debates tend to die out before entering the state houses.
I am against the fracturing of any state at this point, especially when driven by politics. We're a pretty fractured and polarized country at the moment and I feel that any secession of sorts that is ideologically-driven could start a domino affect and just feed into a greater divide in this country.
I have to agree with you on that one. Being a WA native from the eastside, I can tell you though the distribution of tax revenue for state projects goes 99% to the Puget Sound area. While that area brings in more tax revenue, the distribution is still disproportionate. Despite many roads and things that need repair on the eastside (I"m talking in metro areas above 100,000, not farmland). This has really frustrated many residents. While there is definitely a political element to this, I think the state's governor and legislature need to include eastern WA more into the mix. The mountain divide does enough to isolate people on each side of the state, it isn't necessary to split the state, but they need to share the wealth IMO...
Well ....this is news to me. I have heard about Oregon dividing in a different way. (It probably won't happen) There's been talk for years about dividing southern Oregon and taking in northern California to make it all one state.
I guess the problem is that some states have their diferences within the state. Since any dividing of a state would need to pass a vote including all areas of that state, I just don't see it passing with a majority of people.
This was a big deal in Southern Oregon just before WWII. The state of Jefferson
was supposed to be composed of Siskiyou and Del Norte counties of northern California, and Curry, Josephine, Jackson, and Douglas counties in Oregon. The state capitol was to be Medford. The promotion started in Dec. 1941, but there was an "interruption" (WWII), and it was forgotten immediatly.
Northern Californians have periodically sought to divide California between Northern and Southern California as well because of politics and the centralized power of the Los Angeles area. The question always arises, if it were to divide into two states....does the North keep San Francisco? The Central Valley is generally very conservative, yet despite its recent growth, it's not populated enough to force the debate. It also revolves around water resources as the California Aqueduct carries Northern California water to Southern California along the central coast and the farmers in the North resent the flow of water south to Los Angeles.
There's a definite political line drawn along the Cascades. But I can't help but look at this as cutting the least economically productive regions of three states and merging them together.
E. Washington divorced from Seattle, E. Oregon from Portland, and the Idaho Panhandle from the South: what would the region do to drive the economy?
Well, as far as WA goes, breaking with Puget Sound would hurt economically, but I imagine the agriculture would help with that, like in the area of biodiesel demand for 1 thing (if that continues as predicted). We still have the Pacific Northwest labs in Richland, along with lots of government jobs at Hanford as well. IMO Spokane, Tri-Cities, and Yakima would probably continue to prosper as they are now. I'm not promoting the idea, just my thought on the topic.
Your comment about tax revenue and government spending being unfair to Eastern Washington is incorrect. Eastern Washington, just like essentially every less-populated, agriculturally-based area, receives much more government spending per capita and per tax dollar collected than do more urban areas.
It's not anything pernicious, it's just how things work out. On the tax collection side, urban salaries tend to be higher, and urban economies generate more taxable transactions, so the per capita tax receipts are higher in urban areas than in rural areas. On the expenditure side, it just costs more money to provide services when people are spread out than when they are close together (think roads in particular).
The impression is that the urban areas are getting more than their fair share, but the reality is that urban areas invariably subsidies more rural areas. Just something to keep in mind when arguing that the rural areas of the state would be better off by themselves.
Last edited by DBM; 12-07-2006 at 01:54 PM..
Reason: Typo
The impression is that the urban areas are getting more than their fair share, but the reality is that urban areas invariably subsidies more rural areas. Just something to keep in mind when arguing that the rural areas of the state would be better off by themselves.
Yes, DBM you make a good point. I'm not even talking the "rural" areas so much as I am the large to medium size metros of Spokane, Tri-Cities, and Yakima for instance (all with population centers over 150,000). This is the perception in those areas. Whether or not it is justified is another story. I've heard the case you have made before, and I know there is truth in it. I guess the debate will continue...
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.
