If At First You Don't Secede, Try, Try Again (Portland: bankrupt, tax)

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Priscilla Martin

Thanks, you got me looking further.

Jefferson - The 51st State - Northern California / Southern Oregon - A State of Mind

By that definition it would actually be a reasonably hefty state, for a "rural state."

I see Modoc County voted yes today.

Who knows, maybe third time's a charm!

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Deezus

Right, Klamath would still be dealing with federal water restrictions. There will be a problem there no matter what state they are in---considering in most water years there isn't enough for both the farmers and the tribes and fishermen....

I know this whole thing is basically in the realm of speculative fiction at this point but Humboldt County would lose out big time on the deal, since Humboldt State University benefits from being part of the CSU system. Unless you could help subsidize that school with legalized pot money.

Same with Southern Oregon University(my undergrad alma mater) in Ashland--even though they get the leftovers from the Oregon state university system, I don't know how an economically weak State of Jefferson is going to fund that college. Honestly though their best bet at that point would just become a private liberal arts university--they have an attractive location and setting.

Jefferson could lead the way in taking decriminalization of marijuana to the next level (even beyond WA and CO).

[whirnot]

This is actually going a step further in Colorado. There are county meetings going on, and it is being discussed at Regular county commissioners meetings. Mayors, and commisioners are having meetings to discuss it. They admit it will never happen, but insist on wasting time and money with these "discussions"

[EnricoV]

Originally Posted by Priscilla Martin

I saw on the news this nice, normal looking fellow who wants the California county he lives in and some southern Oregon counties to join forces and secede from their respective States. He wants to call their new state Jefferson. Personally, I think he could come up with a better name, but he already has a State of Jefferson flag. Those two XX's are a bit daunting, but maybe they're temporary until a State Bird is chosen. Apparently, this is not a new idea and was first bandied around before WWII. The idea was shelved when Pearl Harbor occurred.

Curry County, you listening?

The name for the proposed state dates from around WWII. The concept of a state covering the same area dates to the 1850s.

Bottom line, it's been around a long time, and nothing's been done. Doesn't bode well for it to happen.

[BlackShoe]

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

I live in Jefferson, an amazing part of the word, and I sometimes toy with the idea myself, but I realize we don't have the economic base.

Yesterday on a very popular LA radio show, John & Ken, one of the leaders of the California branch of the movement was a guest. While registered Republicans outnumber Democrats, there are many independents and Libertarians. This gentleman brought up the points that in the proposed new state economic regulations and restrictions on businesses would be greatly reduced from what California and Oregon now imposes. This would increase jobs and make the area attractive to business. Companies leaving the state might instead relocate to Jefferson and it's favorable business climate.

[Pahn]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

Yesterday on a very popular LA radio show, John & Ken, one of the leaders of the California branch of the movement was a guest. While registered Republicans outnumber Democrats, there are many independents and Libertarians. This gentleman brought up the points that in the proposed new state economic regulations and restrictions on businesses would be greatly reduced from what California and Oregon now imposes. This would increase jobs and make the area attractive to business. Companies leaving the state might instead relocate to Jefferson and it's favorable business climate.

The more favorable a place is for business, the less favorable it is to the middle and lower classes.

At least if they let business do whatever it wants just to chase the bucks.

[BlackShoe]

Originally Posted by Pahn

The more favorable a place is for business, the less favorable it is to the middle and lower classes.

The more favorable a place is for business the more jobs are created, tax revenues are increased, and the general prosperity of the area is enhanced. Just how is this bad for the middle and working classes?

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Originally Posted by Pahn

The more favorable a place is for business, the less favorable it is to the middle and lower classes.

................

Without business, there are no jobs for the middle and lower classes. You can't have a nice well paying job for all the working folks unless there are successful businesses in the area. You can't have everyone happily living on welfare and not working unless there are businesses and working people to pay the taxes to give to the welfare recipients.

So how can a favorable place for business be bad for those who work for a living?

My concern with too much "favorable to business" would be that not enough restriction would be placed upon polluting businesses. Oregon isn't very friendly towards business but at least some of the rigid regulations in Oregon have kept the polluting industries out and the land beautiful. So there has been some benefit to it.

[PNW-type-gal]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

Yesterday on a very popular LA radio show, John & Ken, one of the leaders of the California branch of the movement was a guest. While registered Republicans outnumber Democrats, there are many independents and Libertarians. This gentleman brought up the points that in the proposed new state economic regulations and restrictions on businesses would be greatly reduced from what California and Oregon now imposes. This would increase jobs and make the area attractive to business. Companies leaving the state might instead relocate to Jefferson and it's favorable business climate.

Of course, the businesses that would come in under this fantasy would be the ones which don't require skilled workers, educated workers or infrastructure and which particularly don't want any kind of environmental oversight.

So I think we are back to legalized pot as the only cash business.

You go, California. Leave Oregon out of it.

[Pahn]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

The more favorable a place is for business the more jobs are created, tax revenues are increased, and the general prosperity of the area is enhanced. Just how is this bad for the middle and working classes?

I'm mainly referring to lack of regulation. Pure capitalism doesn't tend to treat workers very well. Turns out collusion can sometimes replace competition, resulting in a race to the bottom for benefits, pay, working conditions.

Pretty much the 1800's all over again.