Why California still hasn't split on 2 states? (Los Angeles, San Diego: go bankrupt, tax)

[DriveNotCommute]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

The Dakotas never split. They were created separately as someone mentioned. If created separately, they would need a good reason to merge.

The Louisiana Territory didn't "fracture" it was intentionally carved up.

Legally speaking, your perspective from when the states were created is probably the most correct in that the states themselves were created as they are.

Still, from the perspective of any boundaries being drawn at all, it's not totally wrong to view the Dakota Territory as being the first legal entity to appear, from which the various states appeared. I understand that the word choice of "fracture" suggests that the other poster may have viewed it from a different context than I currently am.

Based on what others have said, North and South Dakota were created due to the distance between population centers at the time, right? It makes sense that on a political level they are better off split up. But on a purely technical level, the geographic distance is no longer an issue. If they merged and eliminated redundancies in their governments, the local taxpayers could potentially benefit from that, at least.

I'm just going on a tangent to the thread topic, it was interesting when the Dakotas were brought into the conversation.

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

East California has the water. It is West California that lacks it. East California has the Cascades, the Sierra and the Colorado River.

Just because there are differences in political ideology, are you alright with price gouging the Western area with an inflexible resource like water? In most civilized nations, potable drinking water is a human right.

If East California has no other industry and depended primarily on water for its economy, there is no way that reasonable prices could be charged even if we ignore any questions of morality involving water. Remember that not only will the local population need jobs and/or welfare, the new government is an entire bureaucratic structure that needs to be fed, an expense that doesn't currently exist.

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

Just because there are differences in political ideology, are you alright with price gouging the Western area with an inflexible resource like water? In most civilized nations, potable drinking water is a human right.

I don't think they'd have to. Most of the rainfall in the state is on the west coast, and other major sources of surface water entirely depend on where you make the split between east and west California. Hillbilly is presuming the split would be where east California owned most of the water. He's ignoring the fact that most of the educated people in the state are on the west coast, and would probably negotiate a little better than that.

But hey, there's still gambling and prostitution, right?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

Legally speaking, your perspective from when the states were created is probably the most correct in that the states themselves were created as they are.

Still, from the perspective of any boundaries being drawn at all, it's not totally wrong to view the Dakota Territory as being the first legal entity to appear, from which the various states appeared. I understand that the word choice of "fracture" suggests that the other poster may have viewed it from a different context than I currently am.

Based on what others have said, North and South Dakota were created due to the distance between population centers at the time, right? It makes sense that on a political level they are better off split up. But on a purely technical level, the geographic distance is no longer an issue. If they merged and eliminated redundancies in their governments, the local taxpayers could potentially benefit from that, at least.

I'm just going on a tangent to the thread topic, it was interesting when the Dakotas were brought into the conversation.


Just because there are differences in political ideology, are you alright with price gouging the Western area with an inflexible resource like water? In most civilized nations, potable drinking water is a human right.

If East California has no other industry and depended primarily on water for its economy, there is no way that reasonable prices could be charged even if we ignore any questions of morality involving water. Remember that not only will the local population need jobs and/or welfare, the new government is an entire bureaucratic structure that needs to be fed, an expense that doesn't currently exist.

Yeah fine and all that for that. But what about the Big Bang?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

Legally speaking, your perspective from when the states were created is probably the most correct in that the states themselves were created as they are.

Still, from the perspective of any boundaries being drawn at all, it's not totally wrong to view the Dakota Territory as being the first legal entity to appear, from which the various states appeared. I understand that the word choice of "fracture" suggests that the other poster may have viewed it from a different context than I currently am.

Based on what others have said, North and South Dakota were created due to the distance between population centers at the time, right? It makes sense that on a political level they are better off split up. But on a purely technical level, the geographic distance is no longer an issue. If they merged and eliminated redundancies in their governments, the local taxpayers could potentially benefit from that, at least.

I'm just going on a tangent to the thread topic, it was interesting when the Dakotas were brought into the conversation.


Just because there are differences in political ideology, are you alright with price gouging the Western area with an inflexible resource like water? In most civilized nations, potable drinking water is a human right.

If East California has no other industry and depended primarily on water for its economy, there is no way that reasonable prices could be charged even if we ignore any questions of morality involving water. Remember that not only will the local population need jobs and/or welfare, the new government is an entire bureaucratic structure that needs to be fed, an expense that doesn't currently exist.

I understand completely what you're saying but in threads like this, I tend to presume many don't know what's going on. This water topic proves that. For whatever reason, people keep making references to where the water is. That's completely irrelevant because as I said before, the distribution of water is under federal jurisdiction so splitting the state would have absolutely no impact as the fed would likely keep directing it where it's currently going.

[Gentoo]

Ok, let's look at the two schools of thought here for splitting the state. As I mentioned, water distribution is under federal control so that's a non issue.

North-South split:
Makes the most sense should it happen at all. Both regions would have large cities and rural areas. Both would have farming; the San Joaquin Valley for Northern CA and Imperial Valley for Southern CA. Both would have thriving tech industries; Silicon Valley and Tech Coast. This split is not only the historical one but it leaves both with diverse economies and neither would really be dependent on the other or on the federal government. Now...

East-West Split: Most of the population centers in the west. Most of the economic weight also in the west. East would be almost completely dependent on farming which could not sustain an economy large enough for it's population. All shipping ports, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco would be in the west. Now this won't stop the east from getting goods but all of those jobs that come with the ports would now be heavily concentrated in one state along with the majority of the other jobs like in tech, health care, finance, transportation etc. The east, like so many other states like it would become dependent on the federal government to ensure that it didn't implode, sort of like Mississippi. This idea of an East-West California is intellectually bankrupt.

[StandingLenticular]

LA / San Diego is in East CA! See?

[roadwarrior101]

If it split into two states, where would SoCal then get their water?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by StandingLenticular

LA / San Diego is in East CA! See?

Here's what I want you to do; go on Google and find me one web page that has the split done in a simple, first grade type straight line the way you did.

I will wait patiently for your answer.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

If it split into two states, where would SoCal then get their water?

Originally Posted by Gentoo

This always comes up and I always remind everyone that water distribution is under federal, not state jurisdiction so it wouldn't matter if California remained one state or split.

Anyway, there isn't much interest in splitting the state on the whole. The proposals thus far have either been by bitter politicians, or rich techies who want to carve out their own utopia or rural folks in the north who want nothing to do with anyplace there are large cities. None of those are good reasons.

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I understand completely what you're saying but in threads like this, I tend to presume many don't know what's going on. This water topic proves that. For whatever reason, people keep making references to where the water is. That's completely irrelevant because as I said before, the distribution of water is under federal jurisdiction so splitting the state would have absolutely no impact as the fed would likely keep directing it where it's currently going.

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Ok, let's look at the two schools of thought here for splitting the state. As I mentioned, water distribution is under federal control so that's a non issue.

North-South split:
Makes the most sense should it happen at all. Both regions would have large cities and rural areas. Both would have farming; the San Joaquin Valley for Northern CA and Imperial Valley for Southern CA. Both would have thriving tech industries; Silicon Valley and Tech Coast. This split is not only the historical one but it leaves both with diverse economies and neither would really be dependent on the other or on the federal government. Now...

East-West Split: Most of the population centers in the west. Most of the economic weight also in the west. East would be almost completely dependent on farming which could not sustain an economy large enough for it's population. All shipping ports, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco would be in the west. Now this won't stop the east from getting goods but all of those jobs that come with the ports would now be heavily concentrated in one state along with the majority of the other jobs like in tech, health care, finance, transportation etc. The east, like so many other states like it would become dependent on the federal government to ensure that it didn't implode, sort of like Mississippi. This idea of an East-West California is intellectually bankrupt.

...

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by majoun

If anything a state of Southern California would have even higher taxes, more red tape, and more useless regulations, probably more hostile to business, and would be just as expensive.

Unless it consisted only of San Diego, Imperial, and Riverside counties.

Ah, yes! Northern Baja!