News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot

Started by Brandon, June 13, 2018, 09:26:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Jardine on June 16, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

Not sure if the 3 state solution follows on to that or what . . . .

Here's the funny thing about all those Uber-huge urban areas.  When I lived in Phoenix I had Los Angeles and San Diego in my work zone.  I typically would spend a good 40-60 nights a year in those two cities.  I thought the traffic and cost of living was on the hellish side, somehow I dodged two attempts by my employee to relocate me there.  Basically it left me with a real sour opinion of the state a slog of urbanized chaos. 

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didn't take too much of a push. 

What I've found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldn't be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

So to sum everything up, I'm not making a hot take about splitting the state up.  But that said not everyone even California has a high regard for the mega cities and all shlocky things like the entertainment market or tech sector that accompany them. 


bing101

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Quote from: Jardine on June 16, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

Not sure if the 3 state solution follows on to that or what . . . .

Here's the funny thing about all those Uber-huge urban areas.  When I lived in Phoenix I had Los Angeles and San Diego in my work zone.  I typically would spend a good 40-60 nights a year in those two cities.  I thought the traffic and cost of living was on the hellish side, somehow I dodged two attempts by my employee to relocate me there.  Basically it left me with a real sour opinion of the state a slog of urbanized chaos. 

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didn't take too much of a push. 

What I've found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldn't be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

So to sum everything up, I'm not making a hot take about splitting the state up.  But that said not everyone even California has a high regard for the mega cities and all shlocky things like the entertainment market or tech sector that accompany them.

Well every time that California has a ballot initiative for splitting the state the one common scapegoat is at play here its other parts of California blaming Downtown Sacramento for budget issues or in some cases they were against the fact that certain cities like Vallejo went bankrupt in the recession a decade ago which is in the county next door to Sacramento though. As a person who lived in Sacramento in the last California split threat that got killed off by the water debates.

Also we have the Greater Sacramento area and Solano County named scapegoat targets by San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California over water conservation policies. You have the Sacramento area interests say we need to conserve water in a drought and protect endangered species in the Sacramento Delta.

But Farmers in San Joaquin Valley and Southern California say not so fast we need to feed the population here and we need the Sacramento delta as in the Southern end of the Sacramento river from Walnut grove to Rio Vista to supply water to farms and the population centers in the southland.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: bing101 on June 16, 2018, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Quote from: Jardine on June 16, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

Not sure if the 3 state solution follows on to that or what . . . .

Here's the funny thing about all those Uber-huge urban areas.  When I lived in Phoenix I had Los Angeles and San Diego in my work zone.  I typically would spend a good 40-60 nights a year in those two cities.  I thought the traffic and cost of living was on the hellish side, somehow I dodged two attempts by my employee to relocate me there.  Basically it left me with a real sour opinion of the state a slog of urbanized chaos. 

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didn't take too much of a push. 

What I've found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldn't be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

So to sum everything up, I'm not making a hot take about splitting the state up.  But that said not everyone even California has a high regard for the mega cities and all shlocky things like the entertainment market or tech sector that accompany them.

Well every time that California has a ballot initiative for splitting the state the one common scapegoat is at play here its other parts of California blaming Downtown Sacramento for budget issues or in some cases they were against the fact that certain cities like Vallejo went bankrupt in the recession a decade ago which is in the county next door to Sacramento though. As a person who lived in Sacramento in the last California split threat that got killed off by the water debates.

Also we have the Greater Sacramento area and Solano County named scapegoat targets by San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California over water conservation policies. You have the Sacramento area interests say we need to conserve water in a drought and protect endangered species in the Sacramento Delta.

But Farmers in San Joaquin Valley and Southern California say not so fast we need to feed the population here and we need the Sacramento delta as in the Southern end of the Sacramento river from Walnut grove to Rio Vista to supply water to farms and the population centers in the southland.

Not to swing it to a side debate but it's certainly amusing how so many people in the Central Valley gloss over things like the disappearance of a 600 square mile lake due to their irrigation diversion.  It's almost like people just simply don't get that the water supply basically tapped to capacity and there much more that can be drawn from.  The Central Valley arguably could be called one of the worst ecological disasters of the 20th century with an almost total obliteration of the inland wetlands.  The "food"  argument is another that I tend to really question.  How much of those crops really stay in the state versus being exported?  I'd really would like to see some solid figures to see if there is a surplus and how big of one at that.

But to that end it swings back to my point.  California has a lot more facets to it than people realize or see on TV.  Trouble is for anyone looking to split the state up the infrastructure is way too shared between every facet to make the concept even slightly viable.  States like NY, Florida and Texas would likely face far less practical obstacles. 

bing101

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 08:52:33 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 16, 2018, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Quote from: Jardine on June 16, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

Not sure if the 3 state solution follows on to that or what . . . .

Here's the funny thing about all those Uber-huge urban areas.  When I lived in Phoenix I had Los Angeles and San Diego in my work zone.  I typically would spend a good 40-60 nights a year in those two cities.  I thought the traffic and cost of living was on the hellish side, somehow I dodged two attempts by my employee to relocate me there.  Basically it left me with a real sour opinion of the state a slog of urbanized chaos. 

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didn't take too much of a push. 

What I've found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldn't be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

So to sum everything up, I'm not making a hot take about splitting the state up.  But that said not everyone even California has a high regard for the mega cities and all shlocky things like the entertainment market or tech sector that accompany them.

Well every time that California has a ballot initiative for splitting the state the one common scapegoat is at play here its other parts of California blaming Downtown Sacramento for budget issues or in some cases they were against the fact that certain cities like Vallejo went bankrupt in the recession a decade ago which is in the county next door to Sacramento though. As a person who lived in Sacramento in the last California split threat that got killed off by the water debates.

Also we have the Greater Sacramento area and Solano County named scapegoat targets by San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California over water conservation policies. You have the Sacramento area interests say we need to conserve water in a drought and protect endangered species in the Sacramento Delta.

But Farmers in San Joaquin Valley and Southern California say not so fast we need to feed the population here and we need the Sacramento delta as in the Southern end of the Sacramento river from Walnut grove to Rio Vista to supply water to farms and the population centers in the southland.

Not to swing it to a side debate but it's certainly amusing how so many people in the Central Valley gloss over things like the disappearance of a 600 square mile lake due to their irrigation diversion.  It's almost like people just simply don't get that the water supply basically tapped to capacity and there much more that can be drawn from.  The Central Valley arguably could be called one of the worst ecological disasters of the 20th century with an almost total obliteration of the inland wetlands.  The "food"  argument is another that I tend to really question.  How much of those crops really stay in the state versus being exported?  I'd really would like to see some solid figures to see if there is a surplus and how big of one at that.

But to that end it swings back to my point.  California has a lot more facets to it than people realize or see on TV.  Trouble is for anyone looking to split the state up the infrastructure is way too shared between every facet to make the concept even slightly viable.  States like NY, Florida and Texas would likely face far less practical obstacles.

Owens Valley used to have more water until Los Angeles grabbed the water rights away from the people of Owens Valley in a water debate. Now in 2018 its an area from Solano County to the west to Lake Tahoe in the east that's being targeted for a water grab it includes the Sacramento delta, river, Valley and city that's been targeted for water tunnels. I say if California were to split apart its because the rest of California is sucking off water away from the greater Sacramento area plus Solano county to other parts of California. I say the Sacramento area will be another Owens Valley given how the water debates is playing out and why other parts of California is always calling for a split.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: bing101 on June 17, 2018, 12:19:05 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 08:52:33 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 16, 2018, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Quote from: Jardine on June 16, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

Not sure if the 3 state solution follows on to that or what . . . .

Here's the funny thing about all those Uber-huge urban areas.  When I lived in Phoenix I had Los Angeles and San Diego in my work zone.  I typically would spend a good 40-60 nights a year in those two cities.  I thought the traffic and cost of living was on the hellish side, somehow I dodged two attempts by my employee to relocate me there.  Basically it left me with a real sour opinion of the state a slog of urbanized chaos. 

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didn't take too much of a push. 

What I've found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldn't be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

So to sum everything up, I'm not making a hot take about splitting the state up.  But that said not everyone even California has a high regard for the mega cities and all shlocky things like the entertainment market or tech sector that accompany them.

Well every time that California has a ballot initiative for splitting the state the one common scapegoat is at play here its other parts of California blaming Downtown Sacramento for budget issues or in some cases they were against the fact that certain cities like Vallejo went bankrupt in the recession a decade ago which is in the county next door to Sacramento though. As a person who lived in Sacramento in the last California split threat that got killed off by the water debates.

Also we have the Greater Sacramento area and Solano County named scapegoat targets by San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California over water conservation policies. You have the Sacramento area interests say we need to conserve water in a drought and protect endangered species in the Sacramento Delta.

But Farmers in San Joaquin Valley and Southern California say not so fast we need to feed the population here and we need the Sacramento delta as in the Southern end of the Sacramento river from Walnut grove to Rio Vista to supply water to farms and the population centers in the southland.

Not to swing it to a side debate but it's certainly amusing how so many people in the Central Valley gloss over things like the disappearance of a 600 square mile lake due to their irrigation diversion.  It's almost like people just simply don't get that the water supply basically tapped to capacity and there much more that can be drawn from.  The Central Valley arguably could be called one of the worst ecological disasters of the 20th century with an almost total obliteration of the inland wetlands.  The "food"  argument is another that I tend to really question.  How much of those crops really stay in the state versus being exported?  I'd really would like to see some solid figures to see if there is a surplus and how big of one at that.

But to that end it swings back to my point.  California has a lot more facets to it than people realize or see on TV.  Trouble is for anyone looking to split the state up the infrastructure is way too shared between every facet to make the concept even slightly viable.  States like NY, Florida and Texas would likely face far less practical obstacles.

Owens Valley used to have more water until Los Angeles grabbed the water rights away from the people of Owens Valley in a water debate. Now in 2018 its an area from Solano County to the west to Lake Tahoe in the east that's being targeted for a water grab it includes the Sacramento delta, river, Valley and city that's been targeted for water tunnels. I say if California were to split apart its because the rest of California is sucking off water away from the greater Sacramento area plus Solano county to other parts of California. I say the Sacramento area will be another Owens Valley given how the water debates is playing out and why other parts of California is always calling for a split.

Something would need to happen, the way those maps are lined up the proposed California and Northern California would be completely cut-off from any rights to the Colorado River watershed.  I'm honestly surprised that San Diego was lumped into the proposed Southern California given how the rest of the layout seems to be oriented to towards farming communities in the Central Valley and Owens Valley. 

bing101

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2018, 12:26:16 AM
Quote from: bing101 on June 17, 2018, 12:19:05 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 08:52:33 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 16, 2018, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Quote from: Jardine on June 16, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

Not sure if the 3 state solution follows on to that or what . . . .

Here's the funny thing about all those Uber-huge urban areas.  When I lived in Phoenix I had Los Angeles and San Diego in my work zone.  I typically would spend a good 40-60 nights a year in those two cities.  I thought the traffic and cost of living was on the hellish side, somehow I dodged two attempts by my employee to relocate me there.  Basically it left me with a real sour opinion of the state a slog of urbanized chaos. 

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didn't take too much of a push. 

What I've found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldn't be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

So to sum everything up, I'm not making a hot take about splitting the state up.  But that said not everyone even California has a high regard for the mega cities and all shlocky things like the entertainment market or tech sector that accompany them.

Well every time that California has a ballot initiative for splitting the state the one common scapegoat is at play here its other parts of California blaming Downtown Sacramento for budget issues or in some cases they were against the fact that certain cities like Vallejo went bankrupt in the recession a decade ago which is in the county next door to Sacramento though. As a person who lived in Sacramento in the last California split threat that got killed off by the water debates.

Also we have the Greater Sacramento area and Solano County named scapegoat targets by San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California over water conservation policies. You have the Sacramento area interests say we need to conserve water in a drought and protect endangered species in the Sacramento Delta.

But Farmers in San Joaquin Valley and Southern California say not so fast we need to feed the population here and we need the Sacramento delta as in the Southern end of the Sacramento river from Walnut grove to Rio Vista to supply water to farms and the population centers in the southland.

Not to swing it to a side debate but it's certainly amusing how so many people in the Central Valley gloss over things like the disappearance of a 600 square mile lake due to their irrigation diversion.  It's almost like people just simply don't get that the water supply basically tapped to capacity and there much more that can be drawn from.  The Central Valley arguably could be called one of the worst ecological disasters of the 20th century with an almost total obliteration of the inland wetlands.  The "food"  argument is another that I tend to really question.  How much of those crops really stay in the state versus being exported?  I'd really would like to see some solid figures to see if there is a surplus and how big of one at that.

But to that end it swings back to my point.  California has a lot more facets to it than people realize or see on TV.  Trouble is for anyone looking to split the state up the infrastructure is way too shared between every facet to make the concept even slightly viable.  States like NY, Florida and Texas would likely face far less practical obstacles.

Owens Valley used to have more water until Los Angeles grabbed the water rights away from the people of Owens Valley in a water debate. Now in 2018 its an area from Solano County to the west to Lake Tahoe in the east that's being targeted for a water grab it includes the Sacramento delta, river, Valley and city that's been targeted for water tunnels. I say if California were to split apart its because the rest of California is sucking off water away from the greater Sacramento area plus Solano county to other parts of California. I say the Sacramento area will be another Owens Valley given how the water debates is playing out and why other parts of California is always calling for a split.

Something would need to happen, the way those maps are lined up the proposed California and Northern California would be completely cut-off from any rights to the Colorado River watershed.  I'm honestly surprised that San Diego was lumped into the proposed Southern California given how the rest of the layout seems to be oriented to towards farming communities in the Central Valley and Owens Valley.




Well San Joaquin Valley once had a lake near Bakersfield but that got dried up due to various environmental disasters in the 1800's. That lake was about the size of Lake Tahoe but that was destroyed though. This is the reason why people in Placer, El Dorado counties say conserve the forests , Snowmelt and Lake Tahoe while Sacramento, Yolo and Solano counties say Save the Sacramento delta/river/valley movements.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: bing101 on June 17, 2018, 09:41:49 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2018, 12:26:16 AM
Quote from: bing101 on June 17, 2018, 12:19:05 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 08:52:33 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 16, 2018, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Quote from: Jardine on June 16, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

Not sure if the 3 state solution follows on to that or what . . . .

Here's the funny thing about all those Uber-huge urban areas.  When I lived in Phoenix I had Los Angeles and San Diego in my work zone.  I typically would spend a good 40-60 nights a year in those two cities.  I thought the traffic and cost of living was on the hellish side, somehow I dodged two attempts by my employee to relocate me there.  Basically it left me with a real sour opinion of the state a slog of urbanized chaos. 

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didn't take too much of a push. 

What I've found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldn't be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

So to sum everything up, I'm not making a hot take about splitting the state up.  But that said not everyone even California has a high regard for the mega cities and all shlocky things like the entertainment market or tech sector that accompany them.

Well every time that California has a ballot initiative for splitting the state the one common scapegoat is at play here its other parts of California blaming Downtown Sacramento for budget issues or in some cases they were against the fact that certain cities like Vallejo went bankrupt in the recession a decade ago which is in the county next door to Sacramento though. As a person who lived in Sacramento in the last California split threat that got killed off by the water debates.

Also we have the Greater Sacramento area and Solano County named scapegoat targets by San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California over water conservation policies. You have the Sacramento area interests say we need to conserve water in a drought and protect endangered species in the Sacramento Delta.

But Farmers in San Joaquin Valley and Southern California say not so fast we need to feed the population here and we need the Sacramento delta as in the Southern end of the Sacramento river from Walnut grove to Rio Vista to supply water to farms and the population centers in the southland.

Not to swing it to a side debate but it's certainly amusing how so many people in the Central Valley gloss over things like the disappearance of a 600 square mile lake due to their irrigation diversion.  It's almost like people just simply don't get that the water supply basically tapped to capacity and there much more that can be drawn from.  The Central Valley arguably could be called one of the worst ecological disasters of the 20th century with an almost total obliteration of the inland wetlands.  The "food"  argument is another that I tend to really question.  How much of those crops really stay in the state versus being exported?  I'd really would like to see some solid figures to see if there is a surplus and how big of one at that.

But to that end it swings back to my point.  California has a lot more facets to it than people realize or see on TV.  Trouble is for anyone looking to split the state up the infrastructure is way too shared between every facet to make the concept even slightly viable.  States like NY, Florida and Texas would likely face far less practical obstacles.

Owens Valley used to have more water until Los Angeles grabbed the water rights away from the people of Owens Valley in a water debate. Now in 2018 its an area from Solano County to the west to Lake Tahoe in the east that's being targeted for a water grab it includes the Sacramento delta, river, Valley and city that's been targeted for water tunnels. I say if California were to split apart its because the rest of California is sucking off water away from the greater Sacramento area plus Solano county to other parts of California. I say the Sacramento area will be another Owens Valley given how the water debates is playing out and why other parts of California is always calling for a split.

Something would need to happen, the way those maps are lined up the proposed California and Northern California would be completely cut-off from any rights to the Colorado River watershed.  I'm honestly surprised that San Diego was lumped into the proposed Southern California given how the rest of the layout seems to be oriented to towards farming communities in the Central Valley and Owens Valley.




Well San Joaquin Valley once had a lake near Bakersfield but that got dried up due to various environmental disasters in the 1800's. That lake was about the size of Lake Tahoe but that was destroyed though. This is the reason why people in Placer, El Dorado counties say conserve the forests , Snowmelt and Lake Tahoe while Sacramento, Yolo and Solano counties say Save the Sacramento delta/river/valley movements.

Interestingly enough Tulare, Kern and Buena Vista Lake are all shown on early state highway maps:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCaltrans%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=4594%2C7951%2C1048%2C2163

To that end locally there is a big push for a new reservoir at Temperance Flat between Millerton Lake and he Mammoth Pool on the San Joaquin River.  Generally I found the topic silly at best and short sighted at worst.  Whenever someone brings it up to me I generally take the opportunity to be a troll and start talking about the destruction of the Tulare Lake Watershed.  Usually that grinds those conversations to a halt. 

bing101

Then there is Jefferson the area north of the Sacramento Valley and North of Santa Rosa they have always called for Redding,CA or Eureka,CA to be the state Capital of Jefferson because they say that California is over represented by interests south of Sacramento though. What I find interesting here is that when the national media does a story on the California splitting apart its usually played in terms of the rivalry of LA and Bay Area in the sports context and with the border Wall talk in San Diego and a little bit on San Joaquin valley and a bit on Jefferson given that Jefferson is north of the Wine Country.

I noticed in the national discussion of California splitting apart, the greater Sacramento area and Solano is never represented in the national news even though its the epicenter of why these debates come up though. I say its more to do with the fact that Solano county and Sacramento do not have national news offices there and the news offices tend to be local. 

michravera

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 08:52:33 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 16, 2018, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Quote from: Jardine on June 16, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

Not sure if the 3 state solution follows on to that or what . . . .

Here's the funny thing about all those Uber-huge urban areas.  When I lived in Phoenix I had Los Angeles and San Diego in my work zone.  I typically would spend a good 40-60 nights a year in those two cities.  I thought the traffic and cost of living was on the hellish side, somehow I dodged two attempts by my employee to relocate me there.  Basically it left me with a real sour opinion of the state a slog of urbanized chaos. 

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didn't take too much of a push. 

What I've found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldn't be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

So to sum everything up, I'm not making a hot take about splitting the state up.  But that said not everyone even California has a high regard for the mega cities and all shlocky things like the entertainment market or tech sector that accompany them.

Well every time that California has a ballot initiative for splitting the state the one common scapegoat is at play here its other parts of California blaming Downtown Sacramento for budget issues or in some cases they were against the fact that certain cities like Vallejo went bankrupt in the recession a decade ago which is in the county next door to Sacramento though. As a person who lived in Sacramento in the last California split threat that got killed off by the water debates.

Also we have the Greater Sacramento area and Solano County named scapegoat targets by San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California over water conservation policies. You have the Sacramento area interests say we need to conserve water in a drought and protect endangered species in the Sacramento Delta.

But Farmers in San Joaquin Valley and Southern California say not so fast we need to feed the population here and we need the Sacramento delta as in the Southern end of the Sacramento river from Walnut grove to Rio Vista to supply water to farms and the population centers in the southland.

Not to swing it to a side debate but it's certainly amusing how so many people in the Central Valley gloss over things like the disappearance of a 600 square mile lake due to their irrigation diversion.  It's almost like people just simply don't get that the water supply basically tapped to capacity and there much more that can be drawn from.  The Central Valley arguably could be called one of the worst ecological disasters of the 20th century with an almost total obliteration of the inland wetlands.  The "food"  argument is another that I tend to really question.  How much of those crops really stay in the state versus being exported?  I'd really would like to see some solid figures to see if there is a surplus and how big of one at that.

But to that end it swings back to my point.  California has a lot more facets to it than people realize or see on TV.  Trouble is for anyone looking to split the state up the infrastructure is way too shared between every facet to make the concept even slightly viable.  States like NY, Florida and Texas would likely face far less practical obstacles.

A similar set of circumstances made Russia aggressive after the collapse of the USSR. The republic boundaries established under the USSR were fine for administrative purposes. After the split, Russia's discovered what it regarded as its spaceport and its tourism hub were in different countries. How inconvenient! What? The new owners don't recognize them as being ours? we had better fix that!

As to urban boundary issues: San Diego/Tijuana? El Paso/Juarez? Buffalo/Niagara Falls? Detroit/Windsor? Brazzaville/Kinshasa? Even Porto Fino/Monte Carlo/Nice/Cannes? These metro areas all cross INTERNATIONAL borders. As to state boundaries: How much of metro Cincinnati is in Kentucky? How much of metro Chicago is in Indiana? Of Portland in Washington? Of Grand Falls in Minnesota? And I won't even go into metro Washington's being in Virginia and Maryland or of New York's being in New Jersey and Connecticut or of the very existence of Texarkana, Mexicali, Calexico, CalNeva, and  CalNevAri.

If California were to become independent from the US (which might be good for both of us) and not split into 3 or 6 or 2 or 5 parts, I would see the Republic as being divided into about 10 cantons (which we in California would call states, but I don't want to confuse the issue) and that is assuming that Baja wouldn't join or be annexed.

The cantons would be something like these:
Uirstondmaen: Roughly the costal counties north of Marin and Sonoma
Siadbiorign: The Northern Western part of the current state from just north of the Sacramento Suburbs on to Oregon and Nevada
SanMarino: San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, Alameda, Contra Costa, and probably Solano counties
Nordij: Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Western Placer and El Dorado and maybe Madera
Saudij: Central Valley south of and possibly including Madera down to Western Kern
Alpina: The Eastern Counties including most of the Sierra not including the desert
Tekuwe: Santa Clara, Maybe Northern Santa Cruz, Maybe parts of Southern Alameda and Southern San Mateo
Tostikost: Southern Santa Cruz and the Coast south to and including Northern Santa Barbara
Arabalkadir: The Eastern Deserts including San Bernardino and Imperia and Eastern Riverside
Uesele: Southern Santa Barbara, Ventura, and the Valley
Elemaen: Interior LA and Western Riverside
Konkost: Orange and San Diego





roadman65

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-split-three-states-20180612-story.html
If I am reading this correctly Orange County would be Southern California and LA would be California, thus splitting the metro LA area.  A drive to Disneyland from Universal would require a trip across the state line.

However, I grew up in North Jersey 8 miles from Staten Island, so going to anywhere within NYC's forgotten borough which was not that far a trip from my house was leaving the state despite a trip to the Jersey Shore (farther than even Brooklyn was still in the state for me.

What is interesting is that Sacramento is in Northern California in the proposal and not California, so its interesting to see how the transition would take place.  If Sacramento was in the proposed California, the current state government could stay put and just downsize.  However, if this does go through it could also have Northern California keep the current structure and the state that will be California would have to form a new government. 

I would assume Sacramento would serve as the new State Capital for Northern and that Southern Cal and Cal would have to pick a city to form its government center.  No doubt in Southern Cal the capital would be in the San Diego metro area or maybe San Bernardino.   For California I could see Bakersfield or Fresno the capital though.

As far as highways go, I-5 would have an almost unique situation though.  It would be in Southern California twice as the counties both north and south of LA County would be proposed Southern California.  This would create the same situation as I-24 in Tennessee going in and out of the same state.  Though would the proposed California and Southern California use the same exits and mileage like both TN and GA do with I-24?


Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

hotdogPi

Quote from: roadman65 on June 17, 2018, 05:22:10 PM
For California I could see Bakersfield or Fresno the capital though.

A capital outside the state?
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

oscar

Quote from: roadman65 on June 17, 2018, 05:22:10 PM
What is interesting is that Sacramento is in Northern California in the proposal and not California, so its interesting to see how the transition would take place.  If Sacramento was in the proposed California, the current state government could stay put and just downsize.  However, if this does go through it could also have Northern California keep the current structure and the state that will be California would have to form a new government.

A lot of the existing California state government is in San Francisco and Los Angeles, anyway, which would give two of the three new states a headstart. For example, the state Supreme Court hears cases in both San Francisco and Los Angeles, and less often in Sacramento, while its associated legal bureaucracies are also in both San Francisco and Los Angeles. The new Southern California state would have more work to do, in that area and others.

One collateral consequence of a state split is that it would boost prospects for a split into two circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, widely despised among Republicans, since you wouldn't have a new 12th Circuit dominated by a single state. A split wouldn't do nearly as much as some people hope to change the 9th Circuit's rulings. But the existing 9th Circuit is too hard to manage, and in particular to keep the rulings of individual three-judge panels consistent.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: 1 on June 17, 2018, 05:38:32 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 17, 2018, 05:22:10 PM
For California I could see Bakersfield or Fresno the capital though.

A capital outside the state?

I'm fairly certain he meant Southern California.  Fresno could really use the shot in the arm economically if the states were ever broken up.  Right now it's all agriculture with an increasing share in distribution.  Bakersfield has those already plus the oil industry. 

bing101

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2018, 12:26:16 AM
Quote from: bing101 on June 17, 2018, 12:19:05 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 08:52:33 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 16, 2018, 08:33:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Quote from: Jardine on June 16, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

Not sure if the 3 state solution follows on to that or what . . . .

Here's the funny thing about all those Uber-huge urban areas.  When I lived in Phoenix I had Los Angeles and San Diego in my work zone.  I typically would spend a good 40-60 nights a year in those two cities.  I thought the traffic and cost of living was on the hellish side, somehow I dodged two attempts by my employee to relocate me there.  Basically it left me with a real sour opinion of the state a slog of urbanized chaos. 

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didn't take too much of a push. 

What I've found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldn't be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

So to sum everything up, I'm not making a hot take about splitting the state up.  But that said not everyone even California has a high regard for the mega cities and all shlocky things like the entertainment market or tech sector that accompany them.

Well every time that California has a ballot initiative for splitting the state the one common scapegoat is at play here its other parts of California blaming Downtown Sacramento for budget issues or in some cases they were against the fact that certain cities like Vallejo went bankrupt in the recession a decade ago which is in the county next door to Sacramento though. As a person who lived in Sacramento in the last California split threat that got killed off by the water debates.

Also we have the Greater Sacramento area and Solano County named scapegoat targets by San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California over water conservation policies. You have the Sacramento area interests say we need to conserve water in a drought and protect endangered species in the Sacramento Delta.

But Farmers in San Joaquin Valley and Southern California say not so fast we need to feed the population here and we need the Sacramento delta as in the Southern end of the Sacramento river from Walnut grove to Rio Vista to supply water to farms and the population centers in the southland.

Not to swing it to a side debate but it's certainly amusing how so many people in the Central Valley gloss over things like the disappearance of a 600 square mile lake due to their irrigation diversion.  It's almost like people just simply don't get that the water supply basically tapped to capacity and there much more that can be drawn from.  The Central Valley arguably could be called one of the worst ecological disasters of the 20th century with an almost total obliteration of the inland wetlands.  The "food"  argument is another that I tend to really question.  How much of those crops really stay in the state versus being exported?  I'd really would like to see some solid figures to see if there is a surplus and how big of one at that.

But to that end it swings back to my point.  California has a lot more facets to it than people realize or see on TV.  Trouble is for anyone looking to split the state up the infrastructure is way too shared between every facet to make the concept even slightly viable.  States like NY, Florida and Texas would likely face far less practical obstacles.

Owens Valley used to have more water until Los Angeles grabbed the water rights away from the people of Owens Valley in a water debate. Now in 2018 its an area from Solano County to the west to Lake Tahoe in the east that's being targeted for a water grab it includes the Sacramento delta, river, Valley and city that's been targeted for water tunnels. I say if California were to split apart its because the rest of California is sucking off water away from the greater Sacramento area plus Solano county to other parts of California. I say the Sacramento area will be another Owens Valley given how the water debates is playing out and why other parts of California is always calling for a split.

Something would need to happen, the way those maps are lined up the proposed California and Northern California would be completely cut-off from any rights to the Colorado River watershed.  I'm honestly surprised that San Diego was lumped into the proposed Southern California given how the rest of the layout seems to be oriented to towards farming communities in the Central Valley and Owens Valley.


Has anybody seen those portable Billboards on I-5 halfway from Sacramento to Los Angeles where the rant goes "Congress caused water crisis" or "Sacramento caused food shortages" this was during the last drought though and probably written by people connected to Tim Draper though given that this was happening when the Six California proposal was at play.




DTComposer

Quote from: bing101 on June 19, 2018, 10:08:30 PM
Has anybody seen those portable Billboards on I-5 halfway from Sacramento to Los Angeles where the rant goes "Congress caused water crisis" or "Sacramento caused food shortages" this was during the last drought though and probably written by people connected to Tim Draper though given that this was happening when the Six California proposal was at play.

Every time I drive past those I think about amending them to say "Congress Industry who decided to create an agricultural heartland in a semi-arid climate-caused water crisis."

Meanwhile, the courts have pulled the initiative off the ballot...for now. The argument is the split is essentially a re-writing or even abolishment of the current California constitution, which would have to go before the state legislature first.

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Splitting-up-Calif-State-Supreme-Court-takes-13085880.php?t=ad04cf83ae

kkt

Quote from: DTComposer on July 18, 2018, 05:44:00 PM
Every time I drive past those I think about amending them to say "Congress Industry who decided to create an agricultural heartland in a semi-arid climate-caused water crisis."

:clap:

Quote
Meanwhile, the courts have pulled the initiative off the ballot...for now. The argument is the split is essentially a re-writing or even abolishment of the current California constitution, which would have to go before the state legislature first.

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Splitting-up-Calif-State-Supreme-Court-takes-13085880.php?t=ad04cf83ae

Good.

bing101

Quote from: kkt on July 18, 2018, 07:41:59 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on July 18, 2018, 05:44:00 PM
Every time I drive past those I think about amending them to say "Congress Industry who decided to create an agricultural heartland in a semi-arid climate-caused water crisis."

:clap:

Quote
Meanwhile, the courts have pulled the initiative off the ballot...for now. The argument is the split is essentially a re-writing or even abolishment of the current California constitution, which would have to go before the state legislature first.

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Splitting-up-Calif-State-Supreme-Court-takes-13085880.php?t=ad04cf83ae

Good.


Agreed

Desert Man

The 3-state split: never gonna happen ... CalExit (the state's secession from the union) will not happen either. And I don't expect in my life for my county: Riverside to split along the Pacific Crest Trail into two: western part remains Riverside, and the eastern part for the Palm Springs-Indio area all the way to the Colorado River.
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

bing101


sparker

Quote from: bing101 on July 26, 2018, 09:40:26 PM
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/video/3793111-new-california-declares-independence-from-rest-of-state/

Yes there's also a state of New California that's at play here.

https://www.newcaliforniastate.com/single-post/2018/07/26/NEW-CALIFORNIA-STATE-1st-Constitutional-Convention-VIDEO

Apparently this is allegedly from one of the meetings of the New California movement.

First and foremost -- the state legislature won't even give this serious consideration.  Second -- the list of complaints looks like a conservative complaint list (at least the Draper 3-state concept made a serious attempt to look like it was reasonably bipartisan) -- I mean, CA opposing Trump policies as a rationale for the severance?  Seriously!!!  And third -- and I say this as a 68-year-old white guy -- the homogeneity (white, mid-40's and up) of the "New California" conventioneers is pretty damn striking.  This sure looks like a blatant attempt to tack on one more "red state" to the list.  And including mostly urban Contra Costa County in the breakaway area?  Looks like one of their principals -- or principal donors -- lives there but just doesn't want to move!  And they bring up the peripatetic "State of Jefferson" as a predecessor movement -- but that one was, like this, an obvious exercise in reactionary politics -- and one that more often than not involved southern Oregon as well.  It's actually humorous -- this whole thing could be a "South Park" episode, but featuring several Cartmans!  In reality, I'm a "classic" old-school liberal (and registered independent) -- definitely not a democratic socialist, communitarian, or anything of that ilk (finding such things counterintuitive!) -- but seeing an ideological power-play such as this brings out the "oh shit, here we go again" strain in me -- particularly in these turbulent times.  Saving grace -- just as with overreaching plans on the left end of things, this new entreaty from the right won't go anywhere! :fight:         

DTComposer

Against my better judgement, I went to their web site to look at their map. The paragraph on that page is simply laughable:

Quote
What it will reveal are two states with populations which are near equal but based on rural vs urban populations.

How could they possibly expect to achieve that? The 10 largest urban areas contain over 70% of the population, and the 25 largest contain over 80% of the population.

If they bother to do the slightest bit of research, say, for example, this map which just appeared in the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-2016-voting-precinct-maps.html#7.00/37.46/-120.15
They'll find that even the population centers in the more conservative parts of the state (San Diego, Fresno, Bakersfield, the High Desert, etc.) are likely to keep any split of the state that's not basically gerrymandered at least leaning blue, if not solidly so.

bing101

https://www.kcra.com/article/at-least-500-structures-destroyed-in-deadly-carr-fire-burning-in-redding/22568595

Wait how will fire rescues be conducted if California is split up and Calfire plus the local fire departments affected by wildfires are all connected to each other by state funding and the various municipal funds to serve the fire department conducting the rescues.
And California is currently facing fires like the one in Redding where Calfire and City of Redding are currently doing rescue attempts.

Desert Man

Quote from: bing101 on July 28, 2018, 12:48:09 AM
https://www.kcra.com/article/at-least-500-structures-destroyed-in-deadly-carr-fire-burning-in-redding/22568595

Wait how will fire rescues be conducted if California is split up and Calfire plus the local fire departments affected by wildfires are all connected to each other by state funding and the various municipal funds to serve the fire department conducting the rescues.
And California is currently facing fires like the one in Redding where Calfire and City of Redding are currently doing rescue attempts.

Wildfires are burning right now west of Palm Springs in the San Jacinto mountains and I can see its smoke cloud over the Coachella Valley.

To split the state 3 ways requires each one to develop their own public services, such as a department of transportation to maintain their roads and highways.
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

bing101

Quote from: Desert Man on July 28, 2018, 11:51:57 AM
Quote from: bing101 on July 28, 2018, 12:48:09 AM
https://www.kcra.com/article/at-least-500-structures-destroyed-in-deadly-carr-fire-burning-in-redding/22568595

Wait how will fire rescues be conducted if California is split up and Calfire plus the local fire departments affected by wildfires are all connected to each other by state funding and the various municipal funds to serve the fire department conducting the rescues.
And California is currently facing fires like the one in Redding where Calfire and City of Redding are currently doing rescue attempts.

Wildfires are burning right now west of Palm Springs in the San Jacinto mountains and I can see its smoke cloud over the Coachella Valley.

To split the state 3 ways requires each one to develop their own public services, such as a department of transportation to maintain their roads and highways.

True I heard in past wildfires that if a fire is severe in Socal then Calfire will call on backup in Norcal units to help out though in the rescue efforts.

corco

I'd say that's the least big deal- wildland firefighters work across state lines as a matter of course in other western states (including California! They'll send their people to Idaho as they can and vice versa, for instance), so that can be worked out within existing frameworks



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.