California Breakup Initiative: Enough Signatures Gathered (Sacramento, Auburn: to buy, income, live)

[bruhms]

I guarantee you, if this were done, we would have more responsive state governments. I can tell you, right now, that Southern California would be more conservative (fiscally) and probably be a "purple" state with strong red streaks running through it. Southern California's suburbs would send more Republicans to its capitol to temper the urban Los Angeles Democrats and the state would be more moderate and business friendly.

Sounds awesome.

[Gentoo]

Every time this comes up, people start talking about water. The distribution of water is under federal jurisdiction not the states so splitting the state would have little to no impact on that.

[DaleK]

Most of the folks I've talked to regarding splitting the state want it in order to abolish AB109 and stop the felons from being dumped here from out of the area not so much the water issue.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Every time this comes up, people start talking about water. The distribution of water is under federal jurisdiction not the states so splitting the state would have little to no impact on that.

Ive brought this up before in similar discussions. Apparently, by the responses, and lack of responses, the reality is ignored.

[AuburnAL]

Originally Posted by pch1013

But you overlook the fact that the *process* of splitting California six ways would be incredibly time-consuming and expensive.

Many of the people involved would still have their jobs during this time anyways.

Think of the massive bureaucracy we'd need to set up in order to manage the process of reallocating state resources, renegotiating union and service-provider contracts, etc. -- not to mention the more mundane but also expensive details like having to re-sign all the highways, make everyone get new license plates and driver's licenses -- the list goes on and on.

These are less trouble, I think, than you make them out to, but obviously the choices involved can make the process more or less complicated. State resources in general could at its very simplest have everything go to the successor state in which it resides, or you could break everything up based on population, land area, or some combination of the two and not be that much more complicated. Contracts would end up being renegotiated anyways. You could get an agreement that any current contract would hold for 6 months after partition. After that it is up to the individual state governments to reach their own deals. The non-government sides of these would accept since the other option is their contract simply ends once California ceases to be a political entity.

For example, think of the Pelican Bay State Prison. Since it's located in Jefferson, it stands to reason that Jefferson would take it over. But Jefferson would have a tiny population and tax base and could not support such a huge, expensive prison on its own. Presumably the inmates would be transferred to their 'states' of origin, thus leaving Jefferson with a big, expensive white elephant and a whole lot of unemployed prison guards.

It wouldn't be the first abandoned state prison in the country. It could possibly be sold to the feds though.

And then think of the many, many years that the breakup process would last. Because, if by some totally unimaginable chance, the measure DID pass, then it would have to make it through Congress and the courts. The time and expense of all the legal wrangling would be mind-boggling, and ultimately the only beneficiaries would be the lawyers.

So we're looking at a decade, at least, of enormous public expenditure -- with no guarantee of success -- and again, it's all so a few plutocrats in the putative state of "Silicon Valley" can stop having to support the rest of the state with their tax dollars.

Entire countries have peacefully partitioned themselves in significantly less than 10 years. I am not sure why you would think it would take that long for a state.

In general representative government is what people make of it. In the US I think most people would be happier if their state was mostly made up of people with similar world views and facing similar issues in life. So I think most would be benefit some from the split up though freedom is what you make of it.

It's hilarious that so many anti-government types are in favor of this stupid idea, because it would -- in both the short and long run -- create a lot MORE government.

In the long run it would create more government overall, but in general the likely result is less government for states where most people want less and more government for states where people want less. Looking at it from the opposite direction if you were to combine Alabama and Mississippi or New Jersey and New York the total size of government in the country would decrease, but the actual size of government the folks in either of those states would deal with would remain virtually the same. In partitioning California the overall government in the nation increases, but the government people of the successor states have to deal with would fall, rise, or stay the same based on the state. However, in all those cases you are more likely to end up with a state government more in line with what the people of that state want which I would argue is not currently the case for most Californias.

It's especially hilarious that so many conservatives are leaping on board -- when the biggest beneficiaries would be godless commie liberals, like me, who happen to live in the proposed state of Silicon Valley.

I would like a country where most people have state governments that are line with the place they want to live. I also think that smaller states offer people more of a chance to participate and influence their government, and overall the higher the number of states the more representation their citizens would have in their state government. Part of this means that people I disagree with will get to live more the way they want while I get to live the way I want. Since I don't have any desire to control my neighbors' life provided he leaves me alone I don't see any problem with this from a conservative point of view.

[AuburnAL]

Originally Posted by AndrewCS

The local news reported briefly on it a few days ago saying that if the State of Jefferson was established, it would be the poorest state in the union. Pretty stupid plan.

I am not sure why this is a brought up as a concern. It's not like the poeple there now are making a ton of money that will evaporate overnight if California ceases to exist. They're already making a certain amount, and it won't go up or down immediately following partition. Depending on the policies the successor states follow their local income may change noticably after several years, but there won't be an overnight change for most people.

[Kitty4]

84.5% of Oroville citizens have a high school level education or higher, and 88.3% of Shasta's citizens have a high school level education or higher, according to City Data. Thus, they are not suffering from a "lack of book learning".

With regard to Sacramento being drained, "In February 2014, after three consecutive years of below-normal rainfall, California faced its most severe drought emergency in decades with fish populations in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta in unprecedented crisis due to the decades of massive water exports from Northern California to south of the Delta via state and federal water projects." California Water Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And also from Wikipedia: "Much of the water supply for central and southern California is also derived from here via pumps located at the southern end of the Delta, which deliver water for irrigation in the San Joaquin Valley and municipal water supply for southern California". Sacramento (link)

[EclecticEars]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

I support a more responsive government and I think we would be better off with something besides what we get from Sacramento...HOWEVER...I think the whole "Six state" idea is insane and completely unworkable.

If you want to break California up, just divide it into two states. Draw the line at Cambria on the coast over to Madera in the Central Valley across the Sierras to Bishop. Call the top part "Northern California" and call the bottom part "Southern California" -- just like they did when they split the Carolinas into "North" and "South" on the East Coast.

Keep Northern California's capitol in Sacramento and put Southern California's capitol in the city of Riverside -- the So Cal equivalent of Sacramento!

I guarantee you, if this were done, we would have more responsive state governments. I can tell you, right now, that Southern California would be more conservative (fiscally) and probably be a "purple" state with strong red streaks running through it. Southern California's suburbs would send more Republicans to its capitol to temper the urban Los Angeles Democrats and the state would be more moderate and business friendly.

Northern California would be a deep blue Indigo color with the only "pink" streaks coming from the rural Gold Country/Sierras and far northern inland counties. Northern California would continue to be dominated by the far-Left of the Democratic Party and be the tech powerhouse it currently is. The San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose/Mendocino Axis of power would ensure this. The Gold Country and rural counties north and east of Sacramento would grumble about this, but they'd go along with it just to be separated from Southern California.

If this ballot proposal were about creating two states, I'd support it. But six is insane! Never!

Very well put!

I might actually support a two-state breakup, but six states? Nope, nope...

I certainly agree with your assessment of Southern California--I'd love to see the WeHo/Santa Monica/L.A. Westside lefties whine about how their new state would become a "Texas of the West Coast," when in fact it would be a purple state leaning slightly toward the left.

But yeah, I'd be okay with splitting the state from southwest to northeast, drawing a line from about San Luis Obispo, then up around Gold Country and to Yosemite. The SLO and nearby Santa Ynez Valley areas are being taken over by the LA/OC crowds, so it seems. The Gold County would grumble about remaining in "Southern California," but Riverside, as you suggested for a capital, might actually do a better job of at least sympathizing with their needs and desires than Sacramento! Besides, SoCal basically steals water from the area around Yosemite (federal jurisdiction, I know, but we might as well keep things consistent), and tons of traffic goes up the 395 to Mammoth and Yosemite.

[bpeeps]

Originally Posted by mbell75

Apparently you didnt either. The Dakotas split in 1889, not the 1700s

Clearly I'm talking about the Carolina PROVINCES, which split in the 1700s. My God, you are so obtuse when it comes to reading comprehension. The Dakotas were TERRITORIES, not provinces. Seriously, go back to school.

[aboveordinary]

The ONLY reason that this ballot measure exists is because the GOP wants to gerrymander California like they did to protect their majority in the House of Representatives. This proposal creates two new Senate seats that will likely be held by Democrats, and ten new Senate seats that will likely be held by Republicans from sparsely populate desert regions of California. It doesn’t attempt to solve any problem other than the GOPs lack of popularity with Californians. He’s just another billionaire who thinks he can buy control of this country.