Where the hell is FritzOwl?
Plan to split California has 1.3 million signatures (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-california-six-states-plan-20140716,0,7651671.story)
QuoteThe billionaire backer of a long-shot effort to break California into six separate states submitted signatures to state officials Tuesday aimed at putting his proposal before voters in 2016.
Timothy Draper, a founder of a Silicon Valley-based venture capital firm that has invested in Twitter, Skype and Tesla, among other companies, has been working for months on a ballot initiative to chop the most populous U.S. state into smaller entities.
"Today, we turn in 1.3 million signatures that say we are ready to make a change," Draper said. "We are ready to create six more responsive, representative governments."
QuoteOne state, to be called Silicon Valley, would include the tech hub along with the San Francisco Bay Area. Jefferson, named after the third U.S. president, would encompass the northernmost region. The state capital of Sacramento would be in North California, while South California would be made up of San Diego and the eastern suburbs of Los Angeles.
L.A. itself would be part of a state called West California.
Holy crap, we had a billionaire in our midst and we dismissed his ideas as being crazy.
Two states maybe, but six. Holy cow as Scooter would once say. I have met many from California do not recognize Southern California as their own and hope that someday they will become another state or go back to Mexico, but never felt the tone for further breakup up north.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 16, 2014, 02:31:01 PM
Two states maybe, but six. Holy cow as Scooter would once say. I have met many from California do not recognize Southern California as their own and hope that someday they will become another state or go back to Mexico, but never felt the tone for further breakup up north.
The State of Jefferson is one of the oldest and strongest state-split proposals out there.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 16, 2014, 02:31:01 PM
Two states maybe, but six. Holy cow as Scooter would once say. I have met many from California do not recognize Southern California as their own and hope that someday they will become another state or go back to Mexico, but never felt the tone for further breakup up north.
There has been some sentiment in rural northern California that they'd rather break away than be in a northern California state hopelessly dominated by its coastal populations.
A six-way split might be hard to sell to voters, among other reasons that there are so many more boundaries for people to quibble about. It would also complicate getting Congress' approval. Congressional Republicans will have problems with a split that could net out to more blue states. Congressional Democrats, as well as a blue-tilting California population, will have problems with a split that might on balance mean more red states. (Not necessarily the level of nastiness before our Civil War, about balancing new free states and new slave states, but still could get ugly if it gets to Congress at all.) That kind of tightrope-walking invites trouble for an already complicated plan.
Quote from: corco on July 16, 2014, 02:25:43 PMHoly crap, we had a billionaire in our midst and we dismissed his ideas as being crazy.
No, he just took the idea at the start of the petition and ran off a cliff with it...
How the hell is everyone so region-centric over there in California? I don't get what warrants splitting the state into six other ones. I mean, over here in New Jersey, the north and south portions are vastly different from eachother (and then you have the central New Jerseyans like me who are just kind of in the middle), but I don't think we need to divide the state because of that.
I think it's to keep the population of each state more balanced.
Quote from: Zeffy on July 16, 2014, 03:00:40 PM
How the hell is everyone so region-centric over there in California? I don't get what warrants splitting the state into six other ones. I mean, over here in New Jersey, the north and south portions are vastly different from eachother (and then you have the central New Jerseyans like me who are just kind of in the middle), but I don't think we need to divide the state because of that.
You realize that New Jersey is a teensy bit smaller than California, right?
And some fat guy named Peter will want to break away and create state #7 called Petoria.
God, this proposal annoys me to no end. Not the concept in and of itself, but the utter lack of thought that went into it. I've ranted about this in earlier threads, but here's some more things that have been brought up, or have come up in my mind:
-Perhaps 60% of Cailfornia's college students would suddenly be "out-of-state." Would they have to pay higher tuitions, would they be grandfathered, what about students who have applied/been accepted but not enrolled at the time of the split? What about the dismantling/division of the UC/CSU systems themselves? Jefferson wouldn't have a single UC campus; other campuses would not be evenly distributed based on states' population. Would campuses be moved/shut down?
-My conservative estimate is that over a million phone numbers would have to change, because area codes can't cross state lines, and the exchanges in adjacent codes in the new states are already being used. So not just new area codes, but entirely new numbers.
-Economy: the split would create the highest per-capita income state in the country (Silicon Valley) as well as the lowest (Central California).
-Infrastructure: Most of California's prisons would be in states with lower populations, meaning the more populous states would have to build new prisons.
Similarly, the major metropolitan areas would suddenly find themselves importing water from two or three states away.
Also, the costs of building or retrofitting buildings to house five new state capitals?
-Bureaucracy: not just five new state governments, but splitting up quasi-governmental agencies that would suddenly span states (the regional districts for transportation, air quality, long-range planning, etc. in both L.A. and the Bay Area would have to divide).
My guess is many of these issues would be solved, at least in the short term, by operating agreements between the states that would try to maintain the status quo (for colleges, prisons, water, etc.). Except that those agreements would have to be ratified by multiple state governments. And those state governments would likely be dominated by the same politicians we have now. Except there will be more of them. So all we've done is create more government, more bureaucracy, more confusion, and most likely not removed the partisanship and corruptness that is the actual problem with the current state government. WHHEEEEEEE!
And the names. Silicon Valley? It's like re-naming North Carolina the "State of Research Triangle." Centuries of romantic, historical and interesting names and four of your six states are named with directionals? You can't even muster up enough marketing élan to do better than "Central California"?
[/rant]
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 16, 2014, 04:04:04 PM
And some fat guy named Peter will want to break away and create state #7 called Petoria.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 16, 2014, 04:16:06 PM
God, this proposal annoys me to no end ....
And the names ... marketing élan ...
This article (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/07/15/what-would-6-californias-really-look-like-jefferson-north-california-problems-why-it-wont-work-senators-act-of-congress-split-up/) reports that Eureka would possibly be the capital of the only one of the six named after a person ....
Quote from: DTComposer on July 16, 2014, 04:16:06 PM
-My conservative estimate is that over a million phone numbers would have to change, because area codes can't cross state lines, and the exchanges in adjacent codes in the new states are already being used. So not just new area codes, but entirely new numbers.
Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island provinces share 902. Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut territories share 867 (itself formed by a merger of part of Alberta's 403 and part of Quebec's 819), which also serves border areas of British Columbia and Alberta provinces. British Columbia's area code 250 also serves the border town of Hyder, Alaska. All of these area codes are in the same numbering plan as the United States.
There are other major issues with the proposal, including the all-important water issue (a source of regional tensions, which I don't know how a state split will help with, notwithstanding what its author says). But area codes are small beer.
Quote from: oscar on July 16, 2014, 04:37:42 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on July 16, 2014, 04:16:06 PM
-My conservative estimate is that over a million phone numbers would have to change, because area codes can't cross state lines, and the exchanges in adjacent codes in the new states are already being used. So not just new area codes, but entirely new numbers.
Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island provinces share 902. Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut territories share 867. British Columbia's area code 250 also serves Hyder, Alaska. All of these area codes are in the same numbering plan as the United States.
There are other major issues with the proposal, including the all-important water issue (a source of regional tensions, which I don't know how a state split will help with, notwithstanding what its author says). But area codes are small beer.
Point taken (as yes, it's way down on the list of concerns), but those examples are multiple states/provinces sharing one single code, not multiple codes straddling portions of multiple states, and Hyder is a tiny settlement geographically isolated from the rest of the state. Area code 909, for example, serves about 500,000 people in Los Angeles County. Area code 661 serves over 600,000 people in Los Angeles County.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 16, 2014, 04:54:18 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 16, 2014, 04:37:42 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on July 16, 2014, 04:16:06 PM
-My conservative estimate is that over a million phone numbers would have to change, because area codes can't cross state lines, and the exchanges in adjacent codes in the new states are already being used. So not just new area codes, but entirely new numbers.
Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island provinces share 902. Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut territories share 867. British Columbia's area code 250 also serves Hyder, Alaska. All of these area codes are in the same numbering plan as the United States.
There are other major issues with the proposal, including the all-important water issue (a source of regional tensions, which I don't know how a state split will help with, notwithstanding what its author says). But area codes are small beer.
Point taken (as yes, it's way down on the list of concerns), but those examples are multiple states/provinces sharing one single code, not multiple codes straddling portions of multiple states, and Hyder is a tiny settlement geographically isolated from the rest of the state. Area code 909, for example, serves about 500,000 people in Los Angeles County. Area code 661 serves over 600,000 people in Los Angeles County.
It really doesn't matter anymore about area codes crossing state lines anyway. With the advent of cell phones, people just take their number from their original area code with them anywhere they go. What does geography have to do with that?
Quote from: corco on July 16, 2014, 02:25:43 PM
Holy crap, we had a billionaire in our midst and we dismissed his ideas as being crazy.
Pfft...that's two four-level stacks and a couple of stub ramps, at most.
I highly doubt Californians would want to split into 2 or 6 states. (Although I think between the two scenarios, 2 Californias would be more plausible).
However, if they are trying to sell the idea of giving California 5 siblings, they ought to come up with some better names.
Jefferson = Shasta
North California = Augustina (named after John Augustus Sutter, Jr., one of the founders of Sacramento.)
Silicon Valley = Bahias (Spanish for Bays)
Central California = Sequoia (Sequoia National Park)
West California = Angeles
South California = Mojave
Just a thought.
Quote from: Brandon on July 16, 2014, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on July 16, 2014, 04:54:18 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 16, 2014, 04:37:42 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on July 16, 2014, 04:16:06 PM
-My conservative estimate is that over a million phone numbers would have to change, because area codes can't cross state lines, and the exchanges in adjacent codes in the new states are already being used. So not just new area codes, but entirely new numbers.
Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island provinces share 902. Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut territories share 867. British Columbia's area code 250 also serves Hyder, Alaska. All of these area codes are in the same numbering plan as the United States.
There are other major issues with the proposal, including the all-important water issue (a source of regional tensions, which I don't know how a state split will help with, notwithstanding what its author says). But area codes are small beer.
Point taken (as yes, it's way down on the list of concerns), but those examples are multiple states/provinces sharing one single code, not multiple codes straddling portions of multiple states, and Hyder is a tiny settlement geographically isolated from the rest of the state. Area code 909, for example, serves about 500,000 people in Los Angeles County. Area code 661 serves over 600,000 people in Los Angeles County.
It really doesn't matter anymore about area codes crossing state lines anyway. With the advent of cell phones, people just take their number from their original area code with them anywhere they go. What does geography have to do with that?
True for many individuals, but most businesses have at least one and likely several land lines (voice, internet, data, fax, alarm, etc.), and many homes still have land lines for internet, alarms, etc.
I wouldn't be opposed to a splitting proposal, but 6? That's overkill...
If you still need proof that initiative petition is NOT the way to legislate complex issues into law, then look no further than this proposal.
Quote from: Brandon on July 16, 2014, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on July 16, 2014, 04:54:18 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 16, 2014, 04:37:42 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on July 16, 2014, 04:16:06 PM
-My conservative estimate is that over a million phone numbers would have to change, because area codes can't cross state lines, and the exchanges in adjacent codes in the new states are already being used. So not just new area codes, but entirely new numbers.
Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island provinces share 902. Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut territories share 867. British Columbia's area code 250 also serves Hyder, Alaska. All of these area codes are in the same numbering plan as the United States.
There are other major issues with the proposal, including the all-important water issue (a source of regional tensions, which I don't know how a state split will help with, notwithstanding what its author says). But area codes are small beer.
Point taken (as yes, it's way down on the list of concerns), but those examples are multiple states/provinces sharing one single code, not multiple codes straddling portions of multiple states, and Hyder is a tiny settlement geographically isolated from the rest of the state. Area code 909, for example, serves about 500,000 people in Los Angeles County. Area code 661 serves over 600,000 people in Los Angeles County.
It really doesn't matter anymore about area codes crossing state lines anyway. With the advent of cell phones, people just take their number from their original area code with them anywhere they go. What does geography have to do with that?
But what about the US Flag? It will go from 50 stars to 55 stars. That affects everyone!!
It sounds like a very dumb idea. It'd make it even harder to do anything in Congress if this actually happens. :banghead:
Quote from: PColumbus73 on July 16, 2014, 06:12:30 PM
I highly doubt Californians would want to split into 2 or 6 states. (Although I think between the two scenarios, 2 Californias would be more plausible).
However, if they are trying to sell the idea of giving California 5 siblings, they ought to come up with some better names.
Jefferson = Shasta
North California = Augustina (named after John Augustus Sutter, Jr., one of the founders of Sacramento.)
Silicon Valley = Bahias (Spanish for Bays)
Central California = Sequoia (Sequoia National Park)
West California = Angeles
South California = Mojave
Just a thought.
Shasta...The Cheap Soda State
If you're splitting California, I can see about 3 sections forming a "New California", but 6 is too much. That'd be like splitting Montana into 6 states. What the heck would that end up being? A major cluster bucket of fuck for that matter.
While we're at it, why don't we divide it up so that there's enough states for each state to only have one area code?
How does increasing the amount spent just on governmental overhead massively help anything ?
Why not totally discorporate statehood down to the city block level and tax the snot out of everybody to build state capitols, borders, and infrastructure everywhere.
Imagine the FREEDOM !!!
{sarcasm alert}
I have suggested Palomar for the SoCal stat with a Capital in Jacumba Hot Springs, only because that is also a good place for the next border crossing that is not San Diego
For what it's worth, here's a map showing the boundaries for each of the 6 proposed states...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fsix-calif-map.png&hash=20411851835ae19087bc8684c41af6dc1297c896)
I'll agree with others that 6 is way too many but I'd be on board with dividing into 3 states (to give the US a total of 52)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fthree-calif-map.png&hash=74edf0311e0d675580e387074329b812f1e1533c)
Or we could go with my idea and draw the state lines that the edges of the area codes. :spin: :-P
Quote from: roadman on July 16, 2014, 08:17:35 PM
If you still need proof that initiative petition is NOT the way to legislate complex issues into law, then look no further than this proposal.
This initiative would only direct the California legislature to consider the proposal if successful. It would not actually cause the partition to happen in and of itself. Presumably the Legislature would handle all of the fine details before abolishing itself. Unless it just threw out the proposal, initiative be damned.
What about "Alta California" (to go with Mexico's Baja California)? Would that be a good name?
While it's probably not close to the same thing, especially in today's political environment, what is now the US was made up of only a half-dozen or so territories just a few centuries ago. California was just a small portion of the Mexican Cession. So in a way California was already split away from it's original, much larger bounderies. If California were to split further, it's nothing more than a continuation of what's been going on since the 1700's.
Wait North California could keep the spade shield, CHP, Caltrans, UC Davis, and CSU Sacramento. But everybody else in the 5 states must renumber state highways, change university name, caltrans and CHP how will it look like in other states.
But I agree that this is just a political protest against North California role in the water issue.
I highly doubt that this happens.
Like others, I could see a 3-state split. But not 6. My own 3-state idea is here (http://www.ajfroggie.com/lower60).
Regarding the water issue, the "coastal" states could address it by building desalinization plants along the coast. But that would be expensive.
Why hasn't San Bernardino county been split yet? :confused:
I've heard of numerous proposals to split California into two, perhaps three states, but six? That's the first I've heard of that one.
Quote from: hm insulators on July 22, 2014, 03:29:21 PM
I've heard of numerous proposals to split California into two, perhaps three states, but six? That's the first I've heard of that one.
You missed FritzOwl's Six States thread, which came long before this thread.
yeah, I was gonna say ... how is this news? I've been reading about this on the forum for years.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 22, 2014, 03:43:16 PM
yeah, I was gonna say ... how is this news? I've been reading about this on the forum for years.
Does that mean that I-366 is coming soon too?
Quote from: vdeane on July 22, 2014, 09:25:02 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 22, 2014, 03:43:16 PM
yeah, I was gonna say ... how is this news? I've been reading about this on the forum for years.
Does that mean that I-366 is coming soon too?
With an 85 mph speed limit going to Alanland. X-(
Quote from: Brandon on July 23, 2014, 09:47:29 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 22, 2014, 09:25:02 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 22, 2014, 03:43:16 PM
yeah, I was gonna say ... how is this news? I've been reading about this on the forum for years.
Does that mean that I-366 is coming soon too?
With an 85 mph speed limit going to Alanland. X-(
Interesting questions. Maybe someone needs to start a "Plan to split North America into Fifteen Countries" thread.
It's more than 15 countries now!
Or do you mean USA, Canada and maybe Mexico?
Quote from: english si on July 23, 2014, 02:14:47 PM
It's more than 15 countries now!
Great catch! Careful study reveals 16 countries: U.S., Mexico, Canada, Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Terrtiories (spelling undisturbed to maintain authenticity of source), Nunavut, Quebec, Greenland, Iceland, [censored], Hawaii, Bermuda, Belize, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Yep, Saint Pierre and Miquelon as separate countries; would France allow it to happen?
Quote from: Grzrd on July 23, 2014, 02:30:49 PM
Quote from: english si on July 23, 2014, 02:14:47 PM
It's more than 15 countries now!
Great catch! Careful study reveals 16 countries: U.S., Mexico, Canada, Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Terrtiories (spelling undisturbed to maintain authenticity of source), Nunavut, Quebec, Greenland, Iceland, [censored], Hawaii, Bermuda, Belize, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Yep, Saint Pierre and Miquelon as separate countries; would France allow it to happen?
Yes, but Miquelon will be provide the rights to French Fries, and Saint Pierre will be given French Bread Pizza.
French Toast? Forget it. Absolutely banned.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 23, 2014, 02:48:13 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 23, 2014, 02:30:49 PM
Quote from: english si on July 23, 2014, 02:14:47 PM
It's more than 15 countries now!
Great catch! Careful study reveals 16 countries: U.S., Mexico, Canada, Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Terrtiories (spelling undisturbed to maintain authenticity of source), Nunavut, Quebec, Greenland, Iceland, [censored], Hawaii, Bermuda, Belize, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Yep, Saint Pierre and Miquelon as separate countries; would France allow it to happen?
Yes, but Miquelon will be provide the rights to French Fries, and Saint Pierre will be given French Bread Pizza.
French Toast? Forget it. Absolutely banned.
French Fries are actually Belgian and French Toast is actually Roman in origin.
Quote from: Big John on July 23, 2014, 04:47:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 23, 2014, 02:48:13 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 23, 2014, 02:30:49 PM
Quote from: english si on July 23, 2014, 02:14:47 PM
It's more than 15 countries now!
Great catch! Careful study reveals 16 countries: U.S., Mexico, Canada, Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Terrtiories (spelling undisturbed to maintain authenticity of source), Nunavut, Quebec, Greenland, Iceland, [censored], Hawaii, Bermuda, Belize, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Yep, Saint Pierre and Miquelon as separate countries; would France allow it to happen?
Yes, but Miquelon will be provide the rights to French Fries, and Saint Pierre will be given French Bread Pizza.
French Toast? Forget it. Absolutely banned.
French Fries are actually Belgian and French Toast is actually Roman in origin.
And French dip?
^^ French Dip sandwich originated in Los Angeles (by whom is under dispute). French onion dip is also American and not found in France.
Quote from: Brandon on July 23, 2014, 09:47:29 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 22, 2014, 09:25:02 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 22, 2014, 03:43:16 PM
yeah, I was gonna say ... how is this news? I've been reading about this on the forum for years.
Does that mean that I-366 is coming soon too?
With an 85 mph speed limit going to Alanland. X-(
VA 28 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5170.msg113606#msg113606) goes there?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=874703592559189&set=a.187942584568630.50648.100000586708549&type=1&theater
California in 6 state the cartoon edition by Google images.
It's not an easy task. You could divide the counties up by cultural and economic factors, so that each state government would pay more attention to their special needs, but then you'd get some of the new states that weren't economically viable. Some of the counties are also too big and include very different cultures -- Fresno is mostly agricultural but includes mountains for timber and tourism. San Bernardino includes highly urbanized area, and ranchland, and desert. Dividing up the water, oil, prisons, UC and Cal State campuses, governmental centers would be a task requiring a Solomon, and there's not very many Solomons in California government these days.