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.
I’ve been exploring rural northern California alot these days given that everything has been closed due to covid-19. I was thinking of the folks who want a new state called Jefferson.
I’ve never been a fan of the idea of breaking up California but if we did, here are some ideas.
What would we call it? The state of Jefferson, The state of Hamilton, or The state of North California?
What would be the boundaries? No county below Sacramento County should be considered. Sacramento County would be the southern most county in this new state.
Geographically, SF Bay is south of northern California. The Sacramento River’s headwaters are in Mt. Shasta, Siskioyou County, and its mouth is just north of San Francisco Bay all clearly within Northern California, no where near central or southern California.
Sacramento County has always been a northern California county as much or more than any Bay Area county. Of the two largest cities in northern California proper, Sacramento is the largest city in northern California by far and it is further north than Santa Rosa, the northern most large Bay Area city.
Given these parameters, this new state would be the 27th most populous state in the US with 3,763,594 people.
Politically, of the 10 most populous counties in this new state, 5 would be controlled by the Democratic party, and 5 would be controlled by the Republican party. It would be a purple state. However, Sonoma County could fairly be excluded because it is considered more of a Bay Area county than a northern California county and more urban Bay Area than rural northern California, and because it is overwellmingly politically unbalanced to the left (Democratic) as opposed to the other counties in northern California.
The primary factors for designating a county as northern Californian would be its northern location in comparison to the rest of California and its political balance in regards to its population.
Population size should be a consideration in terms of political balance. If a county is overwellmingly politically unbalanced and has a large population it should not be part of northern California. Sonoma County is a good example of this. It has a very large population, it is overwhemingly politically unbalanced. Counties that are clearly geographically located north within northern California could be excluded from the politically unbalanced rule(factor) such as Humboldt County which is overwhemingly Democrat and Placer County which a Republican stronghold would still be part of northern California because their populations are still considered marginally small and because they are located so far north within northern California.
This new state would be geographically diverse with varied climates with both democratic and republican strongholds.
It would have one medium to large urban Metro Area and numerous small towns not connected to large suburban or urban areas.
The fact that it would be its own state would stimulate opportunities for new industries and economic opportunities that don't exist now or are in small supply.
The counties of this new State of North California would be: Amador, Alpine, Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modac, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo, and Yuba.
Sacramento would remain the capital of North California while California would choose a new capital city.
Doesn’t matter. They would want to exclude San Francisco. Therefore the state of Jefferson would be a poor state financially speaking. But I personally could care less of a bunch of counties want to form their own state. Especially those states. There is absolutely little to no urban development in those areas.
The counties of this new State of North California would be: Amador, Alpine, Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modac, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo, and Yuba.
Sacramento would remain the capital of North California while California would choose a new capital city.
No Bay Area counties should be part of this state as they should remain with their center city. That excludes Napa and Sonoma counties.
I know the north state, (that's the most common term used by locals/press), and they don't consider the Sacramento metro area to be a part of northern California. Therefore, that excludes Alpine, Amador, El Dorado, Sacramento and Yolo counties. That removes all of the really big cities from the state, and that would suit the folks just fine.
Placer and Sutter counties are a bit more difficult to figure out. Placer County has a lot of Sacramento commuters, so might be better suited to remaining with California. Sutter County straddles the line between the two potential states, so might need to be cut in two.
Yes, there wouldn't be any big economic engines in the new state, but on the other hand they could remove the heavy hand of regulation that stunts their economic growth.
Then of course there is the water. The north has it, and the south needs it.
No Bay Area counties should be part of this state as they should remain with their center city. That excludes Napa and Sonoma counties.
I know the north state, (that's the most common term used by locals/press), and they don't consider the Sacramento metro area to be a part of northern California. Therefore, that excludes Alpine, Amador, El Dorado, Sacramento and Yolo counties. That removes all of the really big cities from the state, and that would suit the folks just fine.
Placer and Sutter counties are a bit more difficult to figure out. Placer County has a lot of Sacramento commuters, so might be better suited to remaining with California. Sutter County straddles the line between the two potential states, so might need to be cut in two.
Yes, there wouldn't be any big economic engines in the new state, but on the other hand they could remove the heavy hand of regulation that stunts their economic growth.
Then of course there is the water. The north has it, and the south needs it.
Yes, that was a error when I left Sonoma County on the list; I meant to exclude it for the reasons stated in my first post.
Sacramento and Napa have always been considered Northern California counties and still are. Sacramento is twice as far from the Mexican border as from the Oregon border. Sacramento is approximately 530 miles from the Mexican border yet only approximately 260 miles from the Oregon Border. Similar distances for Napa County. Also, Sacramento and Napa are much more balanced politically than Sonoma.
The Sacramento Metro is already considered Northern California always has been, and another reason to keep it with Northern California is that it would be the big economic engine for the new state as it would need one. Since much of the north state wants to stay rural and keep their small towns small, the one large metro, Sacramento, would take much of the new growth and would be an even more diversified economic engine for the new state. The new state could and would be a significant competitor with nearby states such as Oregon, Washington, Utah, Arizona and California by keeping the Sacramento Metro with the North State.
Placer County has always been considered as part of the new North State. Amador, El Dorado, and Sutter counties have always been considered Northern California and the whole Sac Metro is in the northern top 1/3 of California. Placer, Amador, El Dorado and Sutter counties are much more in line politically with the north state than the rest of California.
The new State, North California, politically, would be mostly right leaning with a few exceptions: Humboldt County is very much to the left. Mendocino County is left leaning. Sacramento County is left leaning, although, the rest of the Sacramento Metro is right leaning.
The most liberal cities would be located in the major college towns of Davis-Yolo County, Arcata-Humboldt County, Chico-Butte County, and Sacramento-Sacramento County.
Keeping Yolo County in the North State would mean the new North State would keep a very highly rated national/international University - Davis. This college would be the flagship university for the new University of North California.
The new state would retain these colleges: Humboldt State, Chico State, Sacramento State, and the largest most prominent University, Davis as it would need these universities to be an economically and culturally relevant state.
Another reason to keep Placer County and Sacramento County in the new North state is that Placer county contains one private college, and Sacramento has the University of the Pacific's, private law school.
It would be in the best interest for the new state to create a new major private university. This could revive efforts to bring back the Jesuits who wanted to create a new private university, the University of Sacramento. And/or, create a new private college/university in one of the many small towns. Which small town would want a new private college: Crescent City, Red Bluff, Redding, Marysville, Yuba City, Susanville, Yreka, Eureka, Ukiah, Nevada City, Auburn, Placerville, Jackson, Downieville, Truckee, South Lake Tahoe, Altruas, Weaverville, Quincy, Napa to name a few.
North California would be similar in size to Pennsylvania, Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, and Arkansas.
North California would be the smallest Western state and the smallest state on the West Coast.
Of the western states, North California would have a larger population than Nevada, Utah and New Mexico.
North California would have almost the same population as Connecticut and Oklahoma.
North California would only have 11% fewer people than Oregon.
Geographically, California would be more than 2/3 larger than North California.
Despite losing northern California, California(1) would still remain the most populous state with approximately 6 million more people than Texas(2). and 15 million more people than Florida(3).
Who or what State will control the water?
Whoever controls the water will be the ultimate power in the area.
SoCal is most vulnerable to water shortages and a large part of that water comes from other states.
This "State of Jefferson" thingy is all just a right-wing pipe dream / fantasy dreamed up by a bunch of Trumpist Republicans.
It won't happen for a number of reasons:
1. -- and this is a BIG one! -- there is way too much meth going on once you get north of Sacramento.
2. Aside from the natural beauty of the Sierras, the redwoods and the Cascades, there isn't much to sustain the economy.
3. Those northern counties with huge meth problems and high welfare-use rely on remittances paid into State coffers by the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, Fresno, etc. Without the money that the liberal counties pay in taxes to support them, those counties would have absolutely nothing. It would be nothing more than a West Coast version of West Virginia without the coal industry.
This "State of Jefferson" thingy is all just a right-wing pipe dream / fantasy dreamed up by a bunch of Trumpist Republicans.
It won't happen for a number of reasons:
1. -- and this is a BIG one! -- there is way too much meth going on once you get north of Sacramento.
2. Aside from the natural beauty of the Sierras, the redwoods and the Cascades, there isn't much to sustain the economy.
3. Those northern counties with huge meth problems and high welfare-use rely on remittances paid into State coffers by the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, Fresno, etc. Without the money that the liberal counties pay in taxes to support them, those counties would have absolutely nothing. It would be nothing more than a West Coast version of West Virginia without the coal industry.
1. You obviously didn't read my posts which addresses the issue of sustaining an economy.
2. There are hundreds of thousands more people in SoCal addicted to meth than the north state.
3. Long before Trump-Republicans/libertarians, the idea of splitting California up, especially creating a new north state, have been in existence. The last seriously talked about attempt was from a powerful and ultra wealthy Democrat.
4. This is such a hot button issue that the powers that be quickly discredit, ignore and attack for the obvious political ramifications which I've addressed in my posts.
5. But for the people in the Northern California it is more about representation and freedom. Why would someone way down in Palmdale care if the north state created their own state. Less of your taxes would need to be spent in the North State.
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.
