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.
What border war? Additionally, what exactly are you integrating East St. Louis with? Its industrial riverfront is already integrated, but population wise in the Illinois suburbs East St. Louis got surpassed by other cities ages ago as the population moved further east. Currently the poorest, most blighted, and most dangerous sections of the Metro East are between the river and the hills and bluffs further east, and that includes East St. Louis.
Maybe if metro St. Louis was in one state a century ago we would have seen more even development between the two sides of the river, but that ship has sailed. Today, the city of St. Louis would benefit far more from Illinois' policies towards its cities than Missouri's. This article is four years old, but you get the idea.
I also don't see what better tourism Southern Illinois is going to get. The Garden of the Gods in the Shawnee National Forest is criminally underrated, but I don't know how Missouri would better promote it. Southern Illinois' geography is just different than Missouri's. They at least have the Ozarks, whereas Illinois is one of the flattest states in the nation.
Finally, by getting rid of the Metro East (the largest urban area in Illinois outside of Chicagoland) along with the rest of rural Southern Illinois, a grand total of nearly 1.5 million people, you're frankly giving Chicago more sway over the remaining metro areas.
There is a big divide between MO state and the urban centers, but with this shift, this new Missouri area would be a relatively purple area instead of a red one, losing SW MO and gaining East St. Louis. Regardless of whether red or blue governing policies are better, I think it'd be smoother for a metro area to be under one similar regulatory environment than have a lot of fracturing.
As far as tourism, I was thinking if you bundled all the scenic places in one group, they'd be able to advertise better and have a better state land management resources.
This would consolidate the rest of IL around Chicago, but many countries have their states modeled that way, where a large metro is it's own state entity as well, and that seems to be preferable. I'm not sure how integrated mid IL is with Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerseusVeil
Because it was easier for suburban development once St. Louis went into decline in one county that's not separated by a river and that completely surrounds the city on three sides? Additionally, you have three counties in Illinois that border St. Louis County and the city, so there's more red tape in terms of expansion that way.
The Illinois side of the riverfront also took a beating when industry collapsed and white flight occurred. East St. Louis is a shell of its former self, and other formerly large cities like Alton and Granite City are nowhere near as big as they once were. The consolidated population near the river then moved further east, much like how St. Louisans went west.
As for taxes, it'll honestly depend on one's income. Illinois has higher property taxes across the board, but currently has a flat income tax. Missouri has a graduated income tax bracket, and all income over $8,000 will be taxed at a higher rate than what Illinois taxes. Missouri also has a personal property tax on possessions such as cars, and the city of St. Louis has its own 1% earnings tax. So like most things in life, it depends.
I still maintain that St. Louis would do better in Illinois though.
Thanks for the insight on the taxes. I was under the assumption that IL was just in general worse for the average household tax wise.
Here's the thing. This is not going to happen, so people (myself included), are just discussing the merits and problems of a change...that will never happen (as I said). Maybe we all need a hobby.
There is a big divide between MO state and the urban centers, but with this shift, this new Missouri area would be a relatively purple area instead of a red one, losing SW MO and gaining East St. Louis. Regardless of whether red or blue governing policies are better, I think it'd be smoother for a metro area to be under one similar regulatory environment than have a lot of fracturing.
No, you just shifted the Republican hold further east. Southern Illinois is pretty Republican outside of St. Clair County these days. Even Madison County went for Trump, putting into question its purple status going forward. East St. Louis is also a non-factor in terms of influence politically in Southern Illinois. It's a city of 27,000 people, making it only the third largest city in its home county of St. Clair. It helps keep St. Clair blue, but has no sway over the southern third of the state.
For reference, St. Clair is a county of approximately 1/4 of a million people, and Madison County is a few thousand larger these days. Madison is already sliding Republican. The rural counties have also been Republican for ages.
Quote:
This would consolidate the rest of IL around Chicago, but many countries have their states modeled that way, where a large metro is it's own state entity as well, and that seems to be preferable. I'm not sure how integrated mid IL is with Chicago.
It's not integrated outside of the state schools. Illinois would function better with St. Louis as a counterweight, mirroring the Philadelphia/Pittsburgh relationship in Pennsylvania.
That's good to hear. But why is the metro so lopsided? Perhaps they are able to get along because there's not really economic competition from the IL side? From what I've gathered, it sounds like MO just has a more favorable arrangement tax wise to Southern IL than IL is offering.
In creating this, I assumed that most people would prefer to stick to the existing arrangement, however ideal or far from ideal it is, as people generally resist change. I'm besides logistical challenges, I haven't seen any cons.
Kansas City is actually the exception to the rule when it comes to metropolitan areas in more than one state.
In most cases, the state containing the core city also has the overwhelming majority of the metro population - at least 60 percent, usually more.
Only 55 percent of all Greater Kansas Citians live in Missouri. 45 percent live in Kansas.
Moving KCMo to Kansas would also make that state's politics more competitive between the two parties.
The only part of the KS-MO border that should be changed is the little bend in the Kansas River just to the west of Kansas City. It is part of KS but really should be in MO, and the KS-MO border there should be the middle of the Kansas River: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1032.../data=!3m1!1e3
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.
