Will parts of California and Oregon Secede? (homes, unemployment)

[krudmonk]

The notion that we take their tax dollars is laughable. Don't they know that weed isn't taxed?

[Shadowplay]

As some have pointed out, it's been tried before. The timing was a little off; because the Pearl Harbor attack happened a short time later, so pretty much nobody noticed.

The frustrations are real (water diversions, the state "borrowing" funds from counties and municipalities while imposing unfunded mandares), but for most folks up here it's more a state of mind than a reality. I'd say the majority feeling is just to keep quiet and try to ignore what happens in Sacramento. We have limited political clout because of limited population, and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

State government is pretty much dysfunctional. The problem is, so is county government, at least in Humboldt County. It might not be much of an improvement.

The state of Jefferson idea is largely associated with those of a libertarian mindset, of which there are plenty especially in the more rural areas. But the coast votes mostly democratic while the republican strongholds are mostly inland. There's no consensus, including on where the boundaries of Jefferson lie.

It's ironic that this area was included within the fictional liberal state of Ecotopia in the novel of the same name. There's just something about living here and independence... we joke about being behind the redwood curtain, but that relative isolation actually does contribute to the mindset.

[ferretkona]

Originally Posted by humboldtrat

Sounds like a good idea to me . Does that mean we don't have to send any more water to southern California?

What's funny is that 95% of the water goes to the central valley for agriculture.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by ferretkona

What's funny is that 95% of the water goes to the central valley for agriculture.

Try telling that to bitter country folk who think the majority goes to rich people's swimming pools.

[Franklyn]

Originally Posted by ferretkona

What's funny is that 95% of the water goes to the central valley for agriculture.

I think you're more in "denial" than "denile", but that's not important.

Better check your sources again. The water actually goes all over, including some of it back into the Silicon Valley for krudmonk's benefit. So I think your percentage is quite a bit off. A lot of water does go south, but your comment raises a question. Where does most of the agricultural product based on that water use go? Does into simply disappear into space? No.

Though much of the agri-product goes south, some of it goes north - even to other states - including the mythical 'State of Jefferson', some goes back east and some is exported. The point is the water is used beneficially, not wasted by being dumped back into the ocean.

The first desired benefit of the project back in the early 1930's was to provide flood control and protection for low-lying urban areas next to water courses, such as cities like Sacramento, Stockton, and many others. Then came the question of what to do with a stabilized and steady water supply. There followed an agri-boom in the Central and Sacramento Valleys, and we see that result today. But the project spawned more of an opportunity for farming, not the other way around. A strange thing was that even though many early-day farmers supported the project when it was first proposed, many others fought it for years. Go figure.

Read more on the Central Valley Project (http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/cvp.html - broken link) when you have time.

Cheers.

[Donn2390]

Every place has their crazies, look at all the people who come to CD...!
It's not possible for them to do something like that. I don't know if there is any law against it, but you can be sure the small group doesn't have the money to get involved in a fight with state governments. They would be broke in a couple of hours of a court fight.
Even if the states of Oregon and California carved out some land and gave them permission to start a new state, they couldn't afford to operate through the first couple of minutes. It would cost several small fortunes to get any kind of government started, and that would only be the first small step in such a process. If these people had any idea what would be involved with their proposal, they would get a life.....
It would be an absolute impossibility to even conceive such a ridiculous idea.
Like I said, a bunch of crazies who will talk for the next 200 years, and never get anywhere....
Hardly worth giving any time to think about, and now I'm sorry I did...!

[Franklyn]

Originally Posted by Donn2390

...............
It's not possible for them to do something like that................
It would be an absolute impossibility to even conceive such a ridiculous idea.
...........Hardly worth giving any time to think about, and now I'm sorry I did...!

I think you're right about the financial's not being worth it, but there is a way to go about such a thing. It happens with school districts all the time. To start the new entity off with funds the old district(s) transfer a percentage of their current budget over to the new 'thing'.

And both states would have to have authorizing votes from their entire electorate to set that up, not just the folk living in that particular area. So it ain't gonna happen, Donn2390. You are spot on about that, imo.

[Collideascope]

Originally Posted by Franklyn

According to this today several adjoining counties in both states are apparently talking about forming the "State of Jefferson".

Are they really serious?

Yes, they are. But there is zero chance that Oregon and California are going to serve up portions of their own territory for a new state and even less that Congress would grant statehood to such an area.

By the way, the linked article cites "12 counties" that would comprise the new state, but doesn't identify those counties. It then goes on to link to a website that indicates that Jefferson would consist of *18* current counties. Rather confused journalism, it seems.

[Franklyn]

Originally Posted by Collideascope

..... But there is zero chance that .........

As things stand today I tend to agree with your assessment but I've lived long enough to see things happen. For instance, I heard the same things being said concerning statehood for Hawaii and Alaska at one time. If I had been saying what you said I might have inserted the word "almost" before "zero".

Originally Posted by Collideascope

............... Rather confused journalism, it seems.

I noticed the same thing and considered it more speculative than confused, but you might have nailed it better.

[cottonwood2420]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

Well if they're going to do that I don't want anything to do with the bay area. Give me the State of Southern California please

What a good idea.