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.
Who builds and pays for the roads between you and your closest neighbor? Considering that road costs are about a million dollars per lane per mile, this would be a large cost if you and your neighbors had to absorb the cost. You also can't tell me that the local schools don't get state aid.
Well, they have less roads in the north than in the south. Most of the costs go to the numerous projects in the southern portions of the state. That said, if a state were to split, those costs would be the responsibility of the new state. If you think that the north couldn't afford to handle those costs, you are mistaken. Most of the expense of the state goes to the south as I said. The north is primarily farmland and mountain regions. Not only that, but the south gets its water from the north.
A split of the north and south (or the tri-split they wanted) would benefit the north more than it would the southern states. That is why they fought it heavily.
Fine for the 19th century -- just like conservative thought.
Not really MTAtech, the point is that a lot of the roads in those areas really don't need to be paved. Most of them are just farm roads. Mountain main roads sure, but even then, most of the side roads up in the mountains are not paved anyway.
Like I said, the main cost of roads and freeways are in the southern state.
Well, they have less roads in the north than in the south. Most of the costs go to the numerous projects in the southern portions of the state. That said, if a state were to split, those costs would be the responsibility of the new state. If you think that the north couldn't afford to handle those costs, you are mistaken. Most of the expense of the state goes to the south as I said. The north is primarily farmland and mountain regions. Not only that, but the south gets its water from the north.
A split of the north and south (or the tri-split they wanted) would benefit the north more than it would the southern states. That is why they fought it heavily.
You also make another great point, why in the world would a state want to lose its water supply so a handful of rural conservatives could have their own west coast state? If California were gonna split up, it would of happened before 1930, now it is just a pipe dream for rural folk, this goes with every state.
The biggest complication is that splitting a state like Colorado in two will shift control of the federal government away from other states, like Texas and Virginia and New York and whoever, and toward this new state.
If "North Colorado" could hypothetically do this, then that would create an incentive for every state to split apart. You'd spark an "arms race", so to speak, for everyone to have better representation in the senate.
What are some examples of cities and townships seceding?
This is a good point. What if a Wyoming decided to split? Now they've got 4 votes in the Senate where they had 2 before. And 2 votes in the House instead of 1. Now they've doubled their clout, their ability to suck federal dollars, get federal projects, etc. In a time when the federal government is 25% of the economy, that would be huge. They could be like one of those Arab oil states--everybody living in luxury, and nobody working unless they want to. All off of the flow of federal dollars, rather than oil dollars.
How does North Colorado sound? From Fox News - "Officials in eight northern Colorado counties united in opposition to the state's new gun control laws and oil and gas regulations are reportedly considering forming a 51st U.S. state called North Colorado."
I hope so, I'm tired of watching the Obama administration flounder around, this will make a nice diversion.
A state representative from downstate Illinois floated a similar measure last year. Needless to say, it went nowhere.
This is just political posturing. Even the reps who propose stuff like this know it will never happen. But that doesn't matter. All that matters is that by proposing it, they will get some publicity and a lot of far-right votes come the next election.
You also make another great point, why in the world would a state want to lose its water supply so a handful of rural conservatives could have their own west coast state? If California were gonna split up, it would of happened before 1930, now it is just a pipe dream for rural folk, this goes with every state.
The water rights were an issue of devious politics by LA due to their short sighted stupidity in building such a town in such a location. So yes, why would they give up something they deviously acquired for their own stupid purposes, filching water from the agricultural lands to sustain their poor choices.
So, I certainly understand why they wouldn't want such to happen, but that wasn't my point. My point was the "claim" that the northern portions of the state needs the south, it is exactly the opposite.
The biggest problem with CA is that it is the majority cities that decide for everyone. It is why you have a heavily controlled democrat assembly in a state where most of the counties are conservative. The cities dictate to everyone.
The water rights were an issue of devious politics by LA due to their short sighted stupidity in building such a town in such a location. So yes, why would they give up something they deviously acquired for their own stupid purposes, filching water from the agricultural lands to sustain their poor choices.
So, I certainly understand why they wouldn't want such to happen, but that wasn't my point. My point was the "claim" that the northern portions of the state needs the south, it is exactly the opposite.
The biggest problem with CA is that it is the majority cities that decide for everyone. It is why you have a heavily controlled democrat assembly in a state where most of the counties are conservative. The cities dictate to everyone.
I agree with you on LA sucking water up from the rest of the state. The LA metro should of only been about 500K people, California should of had a bunch of medium size cities throughout it rather than a few massive cities.
As for the whole conservative rural and liberal urban, welcome to America, that is just about every state.
As long as the UNION is preserved, fragmenting big states into little states is not a problem.
As to redesigning the flag, here's a link to an interactive program to generate star patterns up to 100 states.
As long as the UNION is preserved, fragmenting big states into little states is not a problem.
As to redesigning the flag, here's a link to an interactive program to generate star patterns up to 100 states.
Fragmenting of any state isn't going to happen, people in each state need to suck it up and work together.
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.
