Greater Idaho: If you live in Idaho do you support it? (Boise: sales, how much)

[AnythingOutdoors]

This poll/thread is for Idahoans. If you don't reside in the state I kindly ask that you move along to something else

With the Idaho House passing a nonbinding measure to consider the Greater Idaho movement, I figure it's a good time to ask Idahoans their thoughts on the matter, including a poll gauge overall support.

Responses on this thread are also a good place to accumulate information, pros/cons, and supporting/opposing views.

To fully disclose my own biases, I don't belong to either major political party and initially was undecided about Greater Idaho but have since come to mostly oppose the idea. From my point of view:

Pros:

• Ability to hunt/fish lots of great new areas -- esp. the Wallowa and Blue Mountains and the Owyhee River -- without needing a nonresident license.
• Expanded number of Idaho state parks.
• Greater land mass - though not sure if this is really a benefit?

Cons:

• Low population density spread over a wide area, meaning infrastructure that's expensive to maintain.
• I have serious doubts about the economic potential for a large area of desert lacking water resources (i.e. I don't believe Greater Idaho's claims that lower regulations would unleash an era of economic prosperity in the region).
• Expensive for Idaho. Western Oregon subsidizes Eastern Oregon by $324 per wage earner (per Greater Idaho FAQ that has since been taken down - see the Internet Archive for this document). The current FAQ still acknowledges this subsidy but more euphemistically (under "OREGON WON'T LET YOU TAKE THEIR STUFF") as "Oregon will save money if the lower-income counties depart, so the state is not losing from this deal: it’s cutting its losses." Sorry, as an Idahoan I don't want to take on another state's problems.
• Idaho's Constitution specifies 35 legislative districts. Either the State Constitution would need to change to accommodate the growing land mass (not guaranteed), or the existing districts would have to be redrawn to be much larger -- a politically fraught process that would result in lower overall representation.

I don't care about the political aspects involved (keeping Idaho Red, or whatever). Nor do I believe this will actually have the effect people want.

So what are your thoughts?

[Cnynrat]

I do live in Idaho, and I do support this initiative.

I'll just say that I think it would be good for Idaho in several ways, and I think it would be good for those citizens of eastern OR who are not well served by Salem.

As a philosophical matter, I support the idea of lowering the barriers to people being able to form political associations of their own choosing.

As a practical matter, I doubt it will happen. The impact on the balance of power at the national level would be small, but it would likely shift one electoral college vote from OR to ID, and I think that's enough for it will be strongly opposed in Congress.

Dave

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

I do live in Idaho, and I do support this initiative.

I'll just say that I think it would be good for Idaho in several ways, and I think it would be good for those citizens of eastern OR who are not well served by Salem.

As a philosophical matter, I support the idea of lowering the barriers to people being able to form political associations of their own choosing.

As a practical matter, I doubt it will happen. The impact on the balance of power at the national level would be small, but it would likely shift one electoral college vote from OR to ID, and I think that's enough for it will be strongly opposed in Congress.

Dave

Thanks for the input. I agree, it's very unlikely to happen.

[mistyriver]

I own homes and live in both Idaho and eastern Washington and I would vote no.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

I understand that the main purpose of the proposal would be to move legal drugs further away from Idaho. Just from that point of view, there is no point. The marijuana grows simply move a bit more underground and the pot shops get closed over a lot of protest. Moving Eastern Oregon into a state where drugs are still illegal isn't going to stop any drug use.

52% of Oregon land is owned by the federal government and most of that is located in Eastern Oregon. The feds had a deal with the state of Oregon to pay a sort of "property tax" for all that land and the feds have backed out of that deal and stopped paying. The BLM also has a history of taking away grandfathered water rights from local farmers which has caused a lot of strife, Illegal seizure of water was a contributing factor to the Malheur incident. Not the main one, but it certainly set the stage. The state of Oregon does nothing to protect the people of Eastern Oregon, but does Idaho want to assume that responsibility and that "disagreement" with the federal government and try to stand the federal government down??

Oregon certainly would not let go of any area that is economically useful like the Central Oregon area around Bend

My main objection is that Eastern Washington is often included in the plans to redraw borders. That would give us Spokane which is chock full of drugs, weird crime, homeless, protestors, and a well established spend and spend and spend again policy toward anything that is popularly woke because that is what the voters there want and vote for..

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

52% of Oregon land is owned by the federal government and most of that is located in Eastern Oregon. The feds had a deal with the state of Oregon to pay a sort of "property tax" for all that land and the feds have backed out of that deal and stopped paying. The BLM also has a history of taking away grandfathered water rights from local farmers which has caused a lot of strife, Illegal seizure of water was a contributing factor to the Malheur incident. Not the main one, but it certainly set the stage. The state of Oregon does nothing to protect the people of Eastern Oregon, but does Idaho want to assume that responsibility and that "disagreement" with the federal government and try to stand the federal government down??

That's a good point. The Greater Idaho website is rather vague in describing the grievances of Eastern Oregonians, but from what I can tell most of their complaints are really with the Feds. I strongly suspect much of the friction stems from the area being marginal at best for agriculture/habitation and there's not enough water to support growth without doing severe ecological damage.

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

Oregon certainly would not let go of any area that is economically useful like the Central Oregon area around Bend

Indeed. Which is why their proposed maps awkwardly gerrymander around Bend.

[dcisive]

considering that Bend has been overrun with liberal Californians I can't see how having them in the breakaway would serve Idaho well.

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by dcisive

considering that Bend has been overrun with liberal Californians I can't see how having them in the breakaway would serve Idaho well.

I think it highlights how much of this is motivated by partisanship. Carving out around places like Bend shows it's not about the land, geographically connected areas, history, or common interests, but instead ideology. While the Greater Idaho website lacks details on what exactly the problems are being a part of Oregon, it's full of maps explaining the proposed changes based entirely on Red vs. Blue voting patterns.

Is this a good way to determine borders? What happens when a formerly conservative place in Greater Idaho becomes liberal, do we redraw state lines again?

[Cnynrat]

Regarding the amount of federal land in OR, if this were to pass it would reduce the total percentage of land in Idaho owned by the Feds. I see that as one of the benefits.

All states (Except RI for some reason - do they not have any federally owned land?) receive payment from the Feds to compensate for lost property tax revenue from federally owned lands. The amount is a pittance compared to property taxes, but OR is getting that money as is ID. The program is called Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), and it's run by the Dept. of the Interior.

The main purpose is not to move OR's drug laws further from ID, although some folks in southern ID may see that as a benefit. The main motivation is that those who live in Eastern OR don't feel they are well served by Salem. This is being driven by OR residents who want to become part of Idaho, and not by Idaho wanting to shift the border. That said, ultimately both states need to agree for it to happen.

I was not aware that they were carving out Bend. I thought this was a straight county by county decision, but on closer examination it does look like they are carving out that part of Deschutes County. That is kind of weird.

This has nothing to do with eastern WA or Spokane. I realize there have been other proposals regarding eastern WA from time to time, but that isn't included as part of this initiative.

Dave

[ejisme]

I've only heard this info, so maybe it's true or not. I've heard area around Eastern Idaho would like to join Wyoming, since the Boise area has become purple and trending bluer, they don't think Boise and the Idaho legislature are representing Eastern Idaho properly. I haven't heard anything about the Panhandle, but as CDL and nearby areas become much bluer as people move from out of state, are they going to look to Washington as a better alternative?

Anyway, I thought this was all just a lot of complaining by a few Eastern Oregon long-term residents. Then having the Idaho House of Reps vote positively out of committee and setting up a full house debate adds a little more legitimacy to the effort. Still probably going nowhere, but not going away either.

I met my wife in La Grande many years ago, and the in-laws lived outside of Elgin until the early 2000s. We still have friends in the area that we visit once or twice a year. None of them want to join Idaho. Yes, they complain about Salem and the Willamette Valley running the state, but Oregon is their state and home. None of these people have ever paid sales tax except when shopping out of state, and they all strongly don't want to pay any sales tax on anything!! If there was a bigger turnout on future elections I think the votes wouldn't be so positive for joining Idaho.