Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest ryanlammi

Dividing California

Recommended Posts

I've hear about this before, but I suppose some billionaire in Silicon Valley has enough signatures to place a measure on the 2016 ballot to divide California into six states. Those would be Jefferson, North California, Central California, West California, South California, and Silicon Valley.

 

According to an article (linked above) on Fox News, Silicon Valley would become the richest state in the country and Central California would be the poorest.

 

article-2563649-1BAB833600000578-311_634x402.jpg

 

If California were to vote in favor of this, the US Congress would need to approve this. Unlikely when you consider the negative effects it would have to the Republican Party (who is in control of the House of Representatives) as this would likely result in 4-5 mostly Democratic states with Democratic Senators.

 

Personally the only way I would see this happening would be if there was a simultaneous decision by Texas to split and form 4-5 Red states, thus balancing the gain of each party. Even then I doubt most Senators and Representatives outside of those two respective states would support giving more influence of national politics to California and Texas.

 

It's still a fun idea to play around with. It reminds me of these topics:

 

Vermont Seceding from the United States?

 

Puerto Rico 51st State?

 

DC Statehood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another crazy Californian ballot initiative...lol. Seems like this is driven by GOP-leaning interests (Draper). On a municipal level - anyone remember when the SFV tried to separate from the City of Los Angeles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it in a third world kind of way.....which is what most of California would turn into!

 

I love how Silicon Alley doesn't include Oakland.

 

How will this improve congestion?  People will still have the same habit, they would just be residents of another state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Actually, if you look closely, I believe Oakland would be a part of Silicon Valley. North of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Rafael would be a part of North California.

 

Also, this comes up with some interesting problems for the Post Office. How would you abbreviate North California? or South California? I guess you could use NO and SO...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Actually, if you look closely, I believe Oakland would be a part of Silicon Valley. North of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Rafael would be a part of North California.

 

Also, this comes up with some interesting problems for the Post Office. How would you abbreviate North California? or South California? I guess you could use NO and SO...

 

I couldn't tell.  this map is a bit better

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=6095006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Actually, if you look closely, I believe Oakland would be a part of Silicon Valley. North of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Rafael would be a part of North California.

 

Also, this comes up with some interesting problems for the Post Office. How would you abbreviate North California? or South California? I guess you could use NO and SO...

 

Yeah, for anything that requires two letters, it would be confusing.  But I imagine it would be referred to generically as it is today as NoCal and SoCal.  Personally, I don't care for all of geographically delineated California names.  Nor do I like Silicon Valley as a name for a state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i could see dividing it in half, as has been dicussed in the past, but not in 6. thats very strange. of course, dividing it at all begs the question of changes in congress and the senate as well as division of texas & alaska and combining north and south dakota. or ne ohio branching off from ohio for that matter. so there are further more national-oriented implications. otoh, states are free to do this if they want to, so we'll see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i could see dividing it in half, as has been dicussed in the past, but not in 6. thats very strange. of course, dividing it at all begs the question of changes in congress and the senate as well as division of texas & alaska and combining north and south dakota. or ne ohio branching off from ohio for that matter. so there are further more national-oriented implications. otoh, states are free to do this if they want to, so we'll see what happens.

Are states really free to do this?  Could Ohio declare that every county is a state so we effectively get 176 votes in the Senate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i could see dividing it in half, as has been dicussed in the past, but not in 6. thats very strange. of course, dividing it at all begs the question of changes in congress and the senate as well as division of texas & alaska and combining north and south dakota. or ne ohio branching off from ohio for that matter. so there are further more national-oriented implications. otoh, states are free to do this if they want to, so we'll see what happens.

Are states really free to do this?  Could Ohio declare that every county is a state so we effectively get 176 votes in the Senate?

 

Congress has to approve it. So the other states' representatives in the House and Senate would vote no and it would never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six is just stupid. There's a case for two or three.

 

Agreed. Six is way too much and having a state named Silicon Valley is just ridiculous. Perhaps to keep things at an even 50, they could strike a deal with every state east of New York to consolidate into a single state of New England, consider convincing the Dakotas, Carolinas, and Virginias to join together with their respective other half, make Alabama and Mississippi accept the inevitable truth that they are one and the same, tack Delaware into Maryland, and make New Jersey choose between Pennsylvania or New York.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six is just stupid. There's a case for two or three.

 

Agreed. Six is way too much and having a state named Silicon Valley is just ridiculous. Perhaps to keep things at an even 50, they could strike a deal with every state east of New York to consolidate into a single state of New England, consider convincing the Dakotas, Carolinas, and Virginias to join together, make Alabama and Mississippi accept the inevitable truth that they are one and the same, tack Delaware into Maryland, and make New Jersey choose between Pennsylvania or New York.

 

All of that and you leave out the Dakotas?  The shame! 

 

You're description sounds like Pan Am-esq version of the Hunger Games!  LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and make New Jersey choose between Pennsylvania or New York.

 

haha New York would never accept New Jersey!

Why would they?  NU is the arm pit of America!  Cue - Surf!  LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and make New Jersey choose between Pennsylvania or New York.

 

haha New York would never accept New Jersey!

Why would they?  NU is the arm pit of America!  Cue - Surf!  LOL

 

New Uruguay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Six is just stupid. There's a case for two or three.

 

Agreed. Six is way too much and having a state named Silicon Valley is just ridiculous. Perhaps to keep things at an even 50, they could strike a deal with every state east of New York to consolidate into a single state of New England, consider convincing the Dakotas, Carolinas, and Virginias to join together, make Alabama and Mississippi accept the inevitable truth that they are one and the same, tack Delaware into Maryland, and make New Jersey choose between Pennsylvania or New York.

 

All of that and you leave out the Dakotas?  The shame! 

 

You're description sounds like Pan Am-esq version of the Hunger Games!  LOL

 

May the odds ever be in Ohio's favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I think it's more of a: "let's keep all the money from the Silicon Valley area in Silicon Valley and not have to share with the rest of California" attempt.

 

Without a doubt that's the goal. It's just more of the class warfare stuff we're used to in the Bay. This map is a way of consolidating the highest-income counties in California. The Bay Area/Silicon Valley state would become an unprecedented concentration of wealth.

 

They're up to 1.3 million signatures and counting. There are a lot of backers in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, which is expected given the fierce libertarian streak in this region:

 

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Signatures-in-Californias-6-States-Proposal-Submitted-November-Ballot-267159901.html

 

*One thing that will be a huge issue/potential roadblock is water rights. The Bay Area and LA area get the vast majority of their water from outside their respective regions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, this stuff is nothing new. Some tech execs have been trying to break away from California and the nation for years. Business Insider has not been too friendly when covering this stuff:

 

Silicon Valley Is Living Inside A Bubble Of Tone-Deaf Arrogance

JIM EDWARDS

DEC. 15, 2013, 8:55 AM

 

...It's ugly, class-war stuff. But Gopman isn't alone. There have been a rash of incidents in which tech execs appear to have interpreted their personal economic success as proof of their permanent superior status to the rest of us.

 

Some of them want to secede from America, or live on lawless artificial islands outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Some of them want to sue their critics.

 

There is a feeling outside Silicon Valley that those inside the tech business are living in a tone-deaf bubble of arrogance. Inside the bubble, everyone is subverting! — disrupting! innovating! —  in a permanent revolution of creative destruction. From the outside, people see multiple billions of dollars swirling around companies that sometimes do trivial things.

 

As Andrew Leonard recently wrote in Salon, "it all feels like the blind, unconscious decadence of a great empire just before its final descent into madness and irrevocable decline."

 

Former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya was quoted recently in The Wall Street Journal:

 

It's becoming excruciatingly, obviously clear to everyone else that where value is created is no longer in New York; it's no longer in Washington; it's no longer in L.A.; it's in San Francisco and the Bay Area.

 

Here is the evidence that Silicon Valley is living in a bubble of its own arrogance.

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-arrogance-bubble-2013-12#ixzz37kk6AJnC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*I think if this comes to statewide vote, it will fail...by a big margin.

 

Logistically, this doesn't make sense due to large, state-wide infrastructure projects. Who gets what? What will water rates be for those of us in thirsty coastal California? Also, I'm not liking the idea of having to leave the state to work and date girls in Los Angeles (loves me some LA girls). That just seems weird to me.

 

I like living in a state with two global, cosmopolitan metropolitan areas. California has two major metro areas with completely different cultures and customs. The diversity of people and landscapes make California unique. It's sort of like Toronto blown up on a bigger scale across a large land area. All these different groups of people from around the world figure out a way to get along (well, for the most part). California could be its own nation (population around the size of Canada and the world's 8th largest economy), but having it be six smaller states probably weakens us all.

 

I don't support any break up the state or secession from the United States (which has previously been an issue in the Bay Area). California is America's most diverse state and it's one of the world's greatest testing grounds for social, political, and cultural movements as a result of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe that if regions want to be separate from other regions (whether that be on the state or even national level), they should be allowed to freely choose their associations and governments.  So while this will need approval from the Federal government (which is unlikely), if Californians want to separate from one another (which is also unlikely, at least on a statewide level), I think they should be allowed to do so without someone else making that decision for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, this measure has no authority to do anything.

 

Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

"New States may be admitted by Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

 

So even in the unlikely event that such a measure would pass, the California legislature is free to ignore it, vote it down, whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, this measure has no authority to do anything.

 

Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

"New States may be admitted by Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

 

So even in the unlikely event that such a measure would pass, the California legislature is free to ignore it, vote it down, whatever.

 

Not to mention the US Congress also probably laughing as they put the proposed bill into the shredder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is stopping Californians from governing themselves on a statewide basis through several fiefdoms.  The issue would be the effect a division of the state would have on the federal government

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I remain optimistic that although ideas like this may seem like pipe dreams now, that things are changing and at some point in the next half century we'll start to develop more sensible geographic borders on this continent.  That's not to say that this plan makes complete sense, but California is ripe for some legitimate reconfiguration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California just became the world's 5th largest economy, surpassing the United Kingdom. Its success has depended on bottom-up economics -- putting tax revenues into public investments, and regulations that protect the environment and public health, not trickle-down economics. https://t.co/gOzLN8P99W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Its success is due to location, not bottom up economics BS.  It is situated on the ocean and home to some of the largest shipping ports on the West Coast, it is an oil rich state that also is home to tons of other natural resources from gold and silver mines and more. It is a state that has multiple climates but overall is pretty temperate which makes it good for growing things as well as manufacturing. It is the benefit of location, despite its high taxes.  Attributing California's economy to bottom up economics is like saying Lebron James is a great basketball player because he ate his Wheaties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How were the ports and the roads and the rail lines built and expanded? And the water systems and the transit systems and the educational systems? These were all significant public-private partnerships. California could have easily had fumbled this geographic opportunity away to Oregon or Seattle or even Mexico or Canada. California was guaranteed nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rail lines were built by the railroad companies. The ports were privately developed in many cases too and many have private ownership even though they are overseen and regulated by the state.  Oregon could never have become California, neither could Seattle. They do not have the same resources that California offers throughout the state.

 

All states have public/private partnerships. It is a strawman to suggest that those on the right want to get rid of all public works. That is pure fallacy. However, the strength of the private sector can solve problems better and more nimbly that a bureaucratic government that offers no competition and zero choice any day of the week. California was guaranteed nothing but for the enterprising entrepreneurs who started companies like Levi's and Wells Fargo and the movie studios, etc who chose to make California their home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Its success is due to location, not bottom up economics BS.  It is situated on the ocean and home to some of the largest shipping ports on the West Coast, it is an oil rich state that also is home to tons of other natural resources from gold and silver mines and more. It is a state that has multiple climates but overall is pretty temperate which makes it good for growing things as well as manufacturing. It is the benefit of location, despite its high taxes.  Attributing California's economy to bottom up economics is like saying Lebron James is a great basketball player because he ate his Wheaties.

 

This post just sort of pretends the last 70 years never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California's economy has largely grown because of Silicon Valley.  Many of the people who made Silicon Valley Silicon Valley were educated elsewhere (often even overseas) and moved to San Francisco not because they enjoyed all the public works of high taxes and spending, but because they could deal with that if that was the cost of being in the Bay Area.  California is becoming a playground for the super-rich amid a sea of poverty and public mismanagement; the taxes from the super-rich enclaves enable the irresponsible fiscal policies of the state government, whereas the middle class continues to leave for places they can actually afford to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California's economy has largely grown because of Silicon Valley.  Many of the people who made Silicon Valley Silicon Valley were educated elsewhere (often even overseas) and moved to San Francisco not because they enjoyed all the public works of high taxes and spending, but because they could deal with that if that was the cost of being in the Bay Area.  California is becoming a playground for the super-rich amid a sea of poverty and public mismanagement; the taxes from the super-rich enclaves enable the irresponsible fiscal policies of the state government, whereas the middle class continues to leave for places they can actually afford to live.

 

It's so weird though that the center of technology innovation isn't happening in a low tax conservative mecca though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California's economy has largely grown because of Silicon Valley.  Many of the people who made Silicon Valley Silicon Valley were educated elsewhere (often even overseas) and moved to San Francisco not because they enjoyed all the public works of high taxes and spending, but because they could deal with that if that was the cost of being in the Bay Area.  California is becoming a playground for the super-rich amid a sea of poverty and public mismanagement; the taxes from the super-rich enclaves enable the irresponsible fiscal policies of the state government, whereas the middle class continues to leave for places they can actually afford to live.

 

It's so weird though that the center of technology innovation isn't happening in a low tax conservative mecca though. 

 

By the same token, should we say that it's weird that Wall Street (a center of technology innovation of a rather different character) hasn't pulled up stakes and moved to Delaware?  Maybe.  But the fact remains that having a kind of captive plutocracy is part of what enables the taxes; the taxes, at least beyond a certain point that NY and CA have long since exceeded, aren't what make such network-effect-driven centers possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×