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.
San Mateo County and San Francisco county were the same entity up until 1856 which was when San Mateo county was created out of the southern part of San Francisco County due to corruption in San Francisco politics.. Now there is a movement to re-unify San Francisco with San Mateo County. SF and SM county share a very close and intertwined history especilly now more then ever.In the name future progress, enviromental issues, economic issues and political issues San Fran and San Mateo must re-unite for the betterment and advancement of all its peoples.
Here I will provide examples of the SF-SM relationship.
-South San Francisco is in San Mateo County.
-SF airport in San Mateo County
-SF jails in San Mateo
-SF drinking supply stored in SM county at Crystal Springs.
-SF owns 23,000 acres of land in San Mateo County
-Where does Daly City start and San Francisco begin?
-Archdisoces of San Francisco(catholic) also covers San Mateo County.
-Both counties are on the San Francisco Peninsula
-SF and SM share U.S. Congrestional district and State rep. districts.
And the list keeps going.
So here is the question. Would you support San Francisco and San Mateo merging into one county? Why or why Not?
San Mateo County and San Francisco county were the same entity up until 1856 which was when San Mateo county was created out of the southern part of San Francisco County due to corruption in San Francisco politics.. Now there is a movement to re-unify San Francisco with San Mateo County. SF and SM county share a very close and intertwined history especilly now more then ever.In the name future progress, enviromental issues, economic issues and political issues San Fran and San Mateo must re-unite for the betterment and advancement of all its peoples.
Here I will provide examples of the SF-SM relationship.
-South San Francisco is in San Mateo County.
Yes. It was originally called Baden.
Quote:
-SF airport in San Mateo County
No. It is incorporated San Francisco County.
Quote:
-SF jails in San Mateo
Two jails in San Francisco and one in San Bruno. The main prison is in Marin County, in San Quentin.
Quote:
-SF drinking supply stored in SM county at Crystal Springs.
-SF owns 23,000 acres of land in San Mateo County
These are the same thing. SF owns a 23,000 acre wildlife reserve, on which sits the Pulgas Water Temple.
Quote:
-Where does Daly City start and San Francisco begin?
Good question.
Quote:
-Archdisoces of San Francisco(catholic) also covers San Mateo County.
Marin too.
Quote:
-Both counties are on the San Francisco Peninsula
So is part of Santa Clara County.
Quote:
-SF and SM share U.S. Congrestional district and State rep. districts.
Most of San Francisco is District 8. The southwest part of the city is in District 12 with part of San Mateo County, split along a line that looks like it was drawn by someone who suffered a nervous breakdown halfway through. The gerrymandering is so thick you can taste it.
I can see positives and negatives to it. The influence of San Mateo County might have an influence on the far-left ideas that SF tends to put out. But consider things like the drug testing scandal.. there's no reason to believe they have what it takes to run San Mateo County.
Now there is a movement to re-unify San Francisco with San Mateo County.
Aside from a few posts here on City-Data, I have never heard anyone propose this. Can you provide a link to an external reference documenting this "movement"?
Quote:
SF and SM county share a very close and intertwined history especilly now more then ever.In the name future progress, enviromental issues, economic issues and political issues San Fran and San Mateo must re-unite for the betterment and advancement of all its peoples.
Why? List some concrete examples of this betterment or advancement. From San Mateo County's point of view, there would seem little to be gained by merging with the fiscal black hole that is San Francisco. On the other hand, San Francisco isn't likely to want to share whichever powers and privileges it enjoys by being both a city and a county.
What would be the point of changing the existing arrangement? I seriously don't get it.
San Francisco is a city and county onto its own while San Mateo is a suburb without a city. By uniting San Francisco to its suburbs a bright future is sure to hit the communities of the San Francisco Peninsula. All the benefits of having a world class city in your county will be had by San Mateo and all the benefits of having suburbs and open space will be had by San Francisco. This merger would automatically make SF County one of the richest county in the United States accompanied by a golden era of prosperity not just for the newly formed San Francisco County but for the entire Bay Area/Northern California region. Also this gives San Francisco the option to annex a few cities and increase its size and potential and its economic output by increasing its city size and tax-base. Also more regional planning on enviromental issues in witch both counties share the same geographic ecology and terrain. Also the economic opportunites for both SF and SM counties are far greater together then if seperated. The new San Francisco-San Mateo county would have over 500 sq miles of land and a population of 2 million residents. Bart would probly expand down the peninsula and you would see more new development in Daly City and South San Francisco witch would probly end up incorperating into the city of San Francisco itself. SF State and UCSF would expand down to the peninsula. There would be a better transportation gird on the Sf peninsula if both counites were united. Bart would have been in San Mateo county since the 80's.
Theres just alot of good things if this were too happen. I cant realley see what could go wrong if SF and SM counties merged.
Two jails in San Francisco and one in San Bruno. The main prison is in Marin County, in San Quentin.
These are the same thing. SF owns a 23,000 acre wildlife reserve, on which sits the Pulgas Water Temple.
Good question.
Marin too.
So is part of Santa Clara County.
Most of San Francisco is District 8. The southwest part of the city is in District 12 with part of San Mateo County, split along a line that looks like it was drawn by someone who suffered a nervous breakdown halfway through. The gerrymandering is so thick you can taste it.
I can see positives and negatives to it. The influence of San Mateo County might have an influence on the far-left ideas that SF tends to put out. But consider things like the drug testing scandal.. there's no reason to believe they have what it takes to run San Mateo County.
#1. SF airport is in unincorporated San Mateo county. Check your facts.
#2. San Quintin is not associated with SF city jail in anyway, San Quintin is a California State Prison.
#3. There is only 1 jail complex in SF and that is 850 Bryant. They have diffrent jails in that complex and they call them jail #1 and jail #2 and so on but they are all in the same building on the same block. Except of course for the SF jail in San Bruno right next to Skyline college. Also SF and SM county share the same juvenile wildnerness camp detention center in La Honda in SM county.
#4. As far as the way the district lines are drawn, well thats your opinion and you are presenting no facts.
#5. Just because there is some scandle with the SFPD, your going to say that one of the worlds most beatiful, liberal, progressive, state of the art, world class cities is not capable of running its own suburbs????
San Mateo county does not even have a strong identity and identifies heavily with San Francisco. Where in turn Santa Clara has its own identity of San Jose and silicon valley while the counties of Alemeda and Contra Costa have their own East Bay thing going on(Alemeda and Contra Costa should also become one county as they were in the 1850's.) Then you have the North Bay counties(witch im not going to get into). The point is is that San Mateo and San Francisco have always been realley close.
Also this gives San Francisco the option to annex a few cities and increase its size
Couple of things wrong with this. The first is, maybe SF doesn't want to increase it's size. It seems to getting along fine in it's current size.
Also, whatever city it thought about annexing would have to vote on being annexed anyway. This also would not matter if it were in a different county. Let's say if Daly City voted to merge with SF, the county line would simply be moved. This has already happened in the Bay Area. The Woodland Park area of Berkeley was originally an unincorporated area of Contra Costa Co. The residents voted to become part of Berkeley and in doing so, the Alameda Co. line was moved to include it. This is basically the area between Grizzly Peak Blvd. and Wildcat Cayon Rd. and from Sunset lane on the north and some other street I forget the name of on the south; The area where GP blvd and Spruce st. merge.
Basically what I'm saying is, county lines can be moved but only if the residents in a given area want it to be and I don't think anyone in either SF or SM counties want to merge their counties.
Quote:
Alemeda and Contra Costa should also become one county as they were in the 1850's.
Not sure why Alameda Co was created, I should know but I don't. However if we start remerging counties, this would mean that there would be a precedent to put Alameda Co. back with Contra Costa and Santa Clara Counties from which it came. Not to mention re-merging Imperial Co. with San Diego Co.
I'm sure there were many reasons why California counties were split in the first place.
For another argument AGAINST merging to form bigger counties, we need only look 400 miles to the south at Los Angeles County, population 10 million, a completely ungovernable mess.
As a bonus, LA county has only five supervisors (one per 2 million people) whereas San Francisco County with a population of 750,000 has eleven supervisors (one per 68 thousand people). I wonder which county's supervisors are more likely to be responsive to their constituents' wishes, or even to have any idea what their constituents' wishes are.
For another argument AGAINST merging to form bigger counties, we need only look 400 miles to the south at Los Angeles County, population 10 million, a completely ungovernable mess.
As a bonus, LA county has only five supervisors (one per 2 million people) whereas San Francisco County with a population of 750,000 has eleven supervisors (one per 68 thousand people). I wonder which county's supervisors are more likely to be responsive to their constituents' wishes, or even to have any idea what their constituents' wishes are.
I think Los Angeles county should take back Orange county! Boy, the conservatives would run for Arizona as fast as their fat legs could go!
For another argument AGAINST merging to form bigger counties, we need only look 400 miles to the south at Los Angeles County, population 10 million, a completely ungovernable mess.
As a bonus, LA county has only five supervisors (one per 2 million people) whereas San Francisco County with a population of 750,000 has eleven supervisors (one per 68 thousand people). I wonder which county's supervisors are more likely to be responsive to their constituents' wishes, or even to have any idea what their constituents' wishes are.
First of all there is a reason why Los Angeles is considered a more world class city then San Francisco, and part of the reason is the sheer size and economic power of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County.
San Francisco is a city and county of 50 sq miles and could greatley benefit with an additional 450 sq miles of land(san mateo county)
And who is to say the cities of Los Angeles county are an ungovernable mess? Sure LA has its proverty stricken areas but also has a fair share of multi million dollar communities witch are not poorly governed my friend.
Plus the city of San Francisco will maintain its current form of goverment, bringing San Mateo county into San Francisco county will not alter the way city goverment is structured. San Francisco can keep its city-county style of governance if they so wish.
I think there is alot of miscomseptions about what will happen if these 2 counties were to re-unify.
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.
