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.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,526,495 times
Reputation: 2038
Advertisements
Keeping it simple, posed to those who have never lived there, since they may have an unique angle on it, even if it may not be the best angle.
While there are some who think and want it to be split in 3 or more (like the State of Jefferson stuff which IMO seems to have too much of a racial motivation) keep the question at two to simplify it.
Seems most people think the hypothetical line would be North of Lompoc on the coast and North of Bakersfield, Barstow and Death Valley inland.
Northern California is completely different from Southern California in literally every single way. If you ask me Northern California is more like Oregon than like Southern California.
I think yes in terms of a political factor. California is a huge defining state in our politics due to the amount of representatives and delegates. I personally strongly dislike this, I think it gives California too much power. A hypothetical Californian split between Northern and Southern would divide up the political power on a national level. States like California, Texas, New York, pretty much define who gets elected and who's ball is in what court.
I have always been a strong advocate of dividing government into smaller local levels rather than larger more centralized governments. California is a huge state land wise, I can't imagine people in Sacramento know San Bernardino County (outside of San Bernardino) too well. Or specific issues related to the massive San Bernardino County. I heard California's constitution is still based on when it had 800,000 people and was mostly rural, I mean look at California now. Politically, it may be best for Californians to have a split.
Outside of this, I don't see why a split would be necessary or even advocated.
Northern California is completely different from Southern California in literally every single way. If you ask me Northern California is more like Oregon than like Southern California.
No.
Only FAR northern California (the region known as "Jefferson" that wanted to be its own state).
Other than that, only based on meaningless generalizations. (IE: San Jose technically the biggest city in the Bay Area/Norcal actually gets about the same average rainfall as LA).
Besides, the REAL cultural divide in California is Coastal vs Inland. Northern and Southern divide is more in the popular imagination. (IE: Santa Cruz has more in common with Santa Barbara or Stockton and San Bernardino or Silicon Valley and Orange County than it does with Eureka or South Lake Tahoe)
I think that California is too big to remain a strong economic power with a strong economy. By that, I mean there is too much population for the State to do well in the rest of the 21st century.
I have always thought the state needs to be split, and the border should be just south of Fresno. Politically, this would actually not mean much as there would be both liberal and conservatives on both sides. But the biggest advantage would be to examine how tax revenues are used. Northern vs. Southern would perhaps be the same, but atleast they could narrow it down to certain districts and projects, and even still work together for major regional projects.
I know full well this is not likely to happen, but it is somewhat a fantasy. And I do wonder if this would be the better economical plan in the long run.
Only FAR northern California (the region known as "Jefferson" that wanted to be its own state).
Other than that, only based on meaningless generalizations. (IE: San Jose technically the biggest city in the Bay Area/Norcal actually gets about the same average rainfall as LA).
Besides, the REAL cultural divide in California is Coastal vs Inland. Northern and Southern divide is more in the popular imagination. (IE: Santa Cruz has more in common with Santa Barbara or Stockton and San Bernardino or Silicon Valley and Orange County than it does with Eureka or South Lake Tahoe)
"Santa Cruz has more in common with Santa Barbara or Stockton and San Bernardino or Silicon Valley and Orange County than it does with Eureka or South Lake Tahoe"
"Santa Cruz has more in common with Santa Barbara or Stockton and San Bernardino or Silicon Valley and Orange County than it does with Eureka or South Lake Tahoe"
What the what?!
Care to elaborate?
Why in the world are you comparing Stockton to Santa Cruz, the Silicon Valley, and Santa Barbara? Have you ever even been to Stockton?
If you were going to split California, I'd split it into 4 states. Southern California, which compromises everything south of San Luis Obispo along the coast as well the inland desert areas. ****hole California Except for the Cool Mountains, which would be the entire Central Valley, Bakersfield, Fresno, Sacramento, and the Sierras. Northern California would be everything north of San Luis Obispo along the coast until Sonoma and Napa. South Oregon would be everything north of that.
Only FAR northern California (the region known as "Jefferson" that wanted to be its own state).
Other than that, only based on meaningless generalizations. (IE: San Jose technically the biggest city in the Bay Area/Norcal actually gets about the same average rainfall as LA).
Besides, the REAL cultural divide in California is Coastal vs Inland. Northern and Southern divide is more in the popular imagination. (IE: Santa Cruz has more in common with Santa Barbara or Stockton and San Bernardino or Silicon Valley and Orange County than it does with Eureka or South Lake Tahoe)
Thats confusing. What I meant to say is that:
similar cities within the Bay area are more similar to corresponding cities in SoCal, than more rural, remote towns in the states.
Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara (popular, beach oriented, expensive, university towns that are the bookends of the central coast).
Stockton and San Bernardino (the cheapest, most troubled, least desirable cities on the far fringes of the corresponding metropolitan areas).
Silicon Valley and Orange County (white collared, plastered in office parks, suburban areas that are economically powerful, and are part of the larger metro area but have their own identity).
Hopefully that clears it up.
But no, I like large states. I like that I have several cities, and just about every natural environment within the same state, and hope it doesn't change.
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.
