REPOST — May as well revisit the topic one last time on a tax day where Californians pay up to 10-percent of their personal income to corrupt politicians.
California needs to be split into three states. The state was only to be allowed to be as big as it was because it was sparsely populated. With an economy that would be 7th in the world if California was a stand alone country it’s ridiculous that its large mass and huge population is represented by only two US Senators, neither of whom represent the interests of the state as a whole.
The State is also ungovernable as a State of this size with such a large population. It’s more of a country than a State by any measure – and a poorly run one, at that.
Every so often the populace discusses cutting the State in half and making two States. I’ve thought about this and cannot see any logical place to split the state in two, but can see a good argument for splitting the State into three.
First of all there are numerous political sub-cultures in California that are so distinctive that they should be separated and given statehood. These areas seldom communicate and rarely see themselves as connected to the other part. They are as follows:
Northern California – This would be a state almost the size of Oregon with similar features and cities. The State begins north of Sacramento with a boundary from Pt. Arena on the west and Lake Tahoe on the east. The suggested Capital would be Eureka or Redding. There is little psychological connection between these folks and the rest of California and their needs are under-represented because of this. The area is massive, yet there is not one University of California campus. It would do better for itself as its own State.
California – The could also be called Central California and it consists of the middle of the State south of Pt. Arena down to just South of Big Sur. From there it cuts
across keeping Los Banos while relinquishing Fresno, which people from this area think of as in Southern California. The Capital would remain Sacramento. The University of California, per se is in this area.
Southern California – This includes the entire rest of the State and constitutes the largest land mass. It would still be one of the largest states in the union. There is already a University of Southern California, which is convenient. The placement of the Capital is problematic and the candidates would include: Los Angeles, Pasadena and San Diego — although an even more neutral location such as Riverside or Santa Ana might work too.
Now to find a way to make this happen.
I agree that the state should be split into at least three parts but I would split it differently. From San Jose to the current northern bordrer would be North California. Everything from south of San Jose like Los Banos to San Luis Obispo (SLO) would be Middle California and everything from SLO to the current southern border would South California.
Being at the edge, one could argue one way whether Los Banos should be included in North California. Having lived in San Jose for three years, IMO the people of Los Banos do not really relate to the people in the Bay Area. The only thing Los Banos is used for is as a short cut to the I-5. One could argue for a fourth split as you suggested, splitting North California north of Sacramento. That would leave the Bay Area out to Nevada as its own state.
Having gone to UCSB and had friends that went to Cal Poly, IMO the people in SLO really do not consider themselves part of Southern California. They really relate more to the rural areas in the middle of the state.
Not to mention, smaller is better.
I was right with you until you put Fresno in Southern California. I am not aware of anyone who thinks Southern California starts any further north than the grapevine (or maybe Bakersfield). Why would Central California (or California) give up the $3.5 billion dollar agricultural economy (in 2000) of Fresno County. I would gladly vote for a split that put Fresno County in Central California, but would never vote for a split if it put Fresno County in Southern California.
I was born in LA [Lynwood] but grew-up in Northern California [near Eureka]
We used to consider Southern California starting somewhere between Ukiah and Santa Rosa – so your division between North and Central seems apt.
I was amased the first time I heard San Francisco referred-to as “Northern” California.
A friend from LA told me I didn’t live in California, I lived in Oregon “spill-over”. 🙂
This is just another shameful example of Dvorak’s California obsession. On one hand, it’s understandable given his location at the Hippie epicenter. JD seems to be trying to come to terms with the changing landscape around him. But in a larger context, you can see that he is fixated on a state that is less interesting than presented. Dvorak has knocked Texas time and again on this glob. More attention should be paid to that great state nation and not our left edge. Let the big state deal with big state problems.
I agree. I doubt Barbara Boxer’s views on anything are even close to those living in northern California
Never happen. No one section would survive on its own.
Water Rights. Single biggest issue in California since the Gold Rush.
I vote for Santa Ana, but only for the irony.
I’d split it into two states, and put SLO, Kern, San Bernardino counties and everything south of that into California, and make the rest “Alta California”. Sacramento would be right in the middle of Alta California, and both states would be of a governable size.
And why not reinstitute the idea of the State of Jefferson?
Why you think the southern San Joaquin valley would want to be part of Southern California is beyond me. For that matter San Luis Obispo county too.
On the other hand I doubt we want to be a part of SF either. You bay area people think were just a bunch of farming hicks in the valley (okay maybe, but y’all need to eat too).
Bring that top line just below San Jose and the lower line just at the Tehachapis and we’ll be fine.
Laws can be changed. In this situation I can see both political parties liking the idea. The Republicans can pick up a couple of Senators from Socal and the Democrats can lock down their two Senators from Cal and they can split up in NorCal.
As for my boundaries, I’m sure they are very debateable although the Pt. Arena-Tahoe line looks solid (and natural) to me.
If someone suggest a four-way split, that would be even more interesting, but harder to sell Congress and the public at large.The central vallys are a problem. Water rights can be resolved, I’m sure.
Or – the Bay Area could break off and form it’s own country. I don’t think we need the rest of them. San Francisco is supporting the rest of the country.
There are obviously exceptions possible. Otherwise West Virginia would not exist. The Union still considered Virginia to be a US state at the time, although one in rebellion. And WV was created.
John, are you kidding here? Water is has and will remain one of the biggest points of contention in California. I’d think about that one for awhile and check your history.
BTW – restore Hetch-Hetchy.
I would move the State line north to the Yuba River. Fresno, Redding, and Bakersfield should be in the same state. I would give everything South of the Grapevine to Southern CA and also give them a strip including the California Aqueduct intake and the Mono Lake water system. And I would break everything at the eastern Sierra foothills and give it to Nevada.
>> If the aim is to get better representation then forget about
>> splitting the state into 2 or 3 and forget about Governor Girlie
>> Man’s useless redisctricting prop.
>>
>> CA has plenty pf legislative representation in D.C just like any
>> other big Population state. We get more Congress critters. Part of
>> the deal.
>>
>> As for better representation within the State of California, which we
>> really need more of, I recommend:
>>
>> Instead of splitting California into three state, we could
>> constitutionally reduce the number of legislative districts in the
>> Assembly and Senate to just THREE DISTRICTS along the same lines as
>> the geographical split proposed. But keep same number of seats
>>
>> Then use proportional representation to elect representatives to
>> these multi member districts.
>>
>> This would solve the problem of one faction gerrymandering the
>> districts and winning 100 percent of power when they only eke out
>> 50.01 percent of the vote.
You had better explain how California’s breakup will benefit the rest of the nation; otherwise, your time would be better spent dreaming of how you’ll spend your lottery winnings.
It will not happen. There are too many states in the midwest and
west who would suffer dilution of their representation in congress
particularly in the Senate. They will say no thanks and that will be that.
These comments are cracking me up.
Yes, let’s split off San Fran and let them be their own state (or island if we can find enough TNT to break them off)… finally be rid of that kooky place and the rep it brings on the whole state.
As far as the southern boundary, I live in San Luis Obispo, so move that line up just past Santa Barbara, so all the Hollywood types living there in Montecito can stay in the state of L.A./Hollywood.
I too would put the Central/Southern California border between SLO and Bakersfield -Central California is too small, and Southern California is too big, in the above proposal. Also, the San Joaquin Valley should be completely within one state.
And I would give Inyo County and other areas east of the Sierra Nevada to Nevada.
I don’t think we’re dealing with Canada here. There is no need for simplistic “54 40 or Fight” attitudes. Lines can be drawn in a wholistic, eco-friendly way. Arnold can run the South, or the Middle, for all I care, but if I decide to grab the Northern part of the state he better leave me alone.
I once saw in some publication a whimsical map of North America as it might look 100 years from now (I think I saw it back in 1995 or so). Has anyone seen this map, or know where I might get another look at it? I’ve tried all kinds of google-type searches and havn’t as yet come up with anything. As I remember it, according to this map the United States and Canada and Mexico (and also Cuba) had become a whole jumble of separate little “countries”, such as “New England” in the Northeast, “Dixie” in the South, “Cascadia” in the Northwest (which included the whole western coast of what is now Canada), and also California, which was turned into Northern and Southern divisions, the southern one ostensibly a part of Mexico. There were regional names depicting other areas as autonomic “states” as such, too, but I can’t remember them, except that Texas is still Texas, and Quebec is still Quebec.
(of course!)
TIA
– John
John G. –
You’re thinking of
Acording to US law, no state can be made from the land of another state
You got the first part, but omitted the rest.
From http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
Article 4
Section 3
Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the 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, the Constitution allows it as long as everyone agrees to it – which is the deal-killer, IMHO.
Great idea but one major change is needed… Put Sacramento into its own state too… I suppose you could call it “Illusion”. If you don’t mind discontiguous states you could combine it with the Washington D.C. beltway to create a virtual state!
I’ve got a better idea: Why not wait until the rest of the Chinese get here and, then, we’ll just let them and the Mexicans decide how they’d like to divvy up their state.
This has been tried repeatedly, the last time was in the late Eighties by then Assemmblyman Stan Statham (now of the Ca Broadcasters Ass.) It was well thought out and researched issues of water, power etc….
No, John G actually (inproperly) posted this link. to the book The Nine Nations of North America..
I am down for this, as long as we get 3 new state constitutions. Our State Government is in desperate need of a “do over.”
The northernmost counties tried to split off and join southern Oregon to make up a new state: Jefferson. They even set up barriers at one point. The bombing of Pearl Harbor stopped it…though there are still signs, web-sites and radion stations. Living in Northeastern California, I find I have nothing in common with the southern California liberals who run the state. This despite having been born in San Francisco (second generation) and living there for 46 years.
FYI: When Texas joined the Union, the treaty (remember, it was a nation, not a territory) specified that at any time, Texas could split up into five separate states. If you think cutting up California would impact the US, think of what five Texases would do!