AARoads Forum

I'm curious and wanting some opinions from those living in these states:

* California:  I've heard the northern half (the part north of LA, or the part north of Sacramento) has considered breaking away.  Would it really be better to split California into three separate states.  Maybe a South California from the Mexican border to somewhere near Bakersfield, a Middle California from Bakersfield to somewhere near Oroville, and a North California for the rest of the state?

* Texas:  Split into east and west, with the line running somewhere around Abilene?  Though Texas seems more stable than California, is there any dissatisfaction around El Paso with the rest of the state?

* Illinois:  Have the southern half split away?  I'm thinking having the dividing line somewhere near Galesburg.

* Kansas:  I believe some book I don't remember the title of said the part west of US 81 wanted to break off instead of having their tax dollars sent to the eastern half (like southern Illinois feels).

New York: There are common proposals to separate downstate, cosmopolitan New York with Upstate New York, mainly because of taxes. People that live in Westchester, Long Island, and NYC commonly complain that they pay the vast majority of the states' taxes, but they get a lesser amount of benefit from them (i.e. state spends more on upstate ny). America the Book jokingly referred to the new state created out of Manhattan and Westchester as "Manhattachester."

the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is still kindof sorta trying to break away and form 'Superior'. Not gonna happen though, they rely too much on the LP for money

Also, Eastern Oregon wanted to break away because their taxes were being spent in the valley and not on them.

Never heard any official proposals on splitting Virginia again, but NoVA/Western VA and Richmond/Hampton Roads sure seem like completely different states to many Virginians.

As for NY splitting, would the new state formed out of NYC absorb parts of Connecticut and Jersey too, so the metro area would be in mostly one state?

California:  While breaking up the state does come up every so often, but the topography, politics, water, and economic factors make it very unlikely.

Some parts of the state, such as the backside of the Sierra Nevada mountains, are rather inaccessible from northern California (especially during the winter).  Therefore, splitting the state near Bakersfield won't work, unless the new Southern California also took the backside of the Sierras.

Politically, the S.F. Bay Area, Sacramento, the North Coast, and Los Angeles are generally Democratic strongholds, while the Central Valley, Orange County, San Diego, and the northeast corner are more Republican strongholds.  Breaking up the state into northern, central, and southern pieces would leave the state just as split politically as it is now, leaving those new states in just as much political disfunction as the existing California.

Water is probably the biggest factor.  Southern California gets most of its water from the Sierras and the Colorado River.  Northern California takes it from local reservoirs, the Sierras, and the Central Valley.  If new state lines break up those water pipelines and aqueducts between multiple states, the Water Wars will become even more heated than they are now.

Economically, each portion of the state has its individual strengths that balance the other.  Southern California has tourism, the TV/Movie industry, and some high tech.  The Bay Area has high tech, some agriculture, and some tourism.  Northern California has mostly eco-tourism.  The Central Valley has agriculture.  As individual pieces, no one area would probably have a sufficient tax base to succeed, but as a whole, it works better.  (Notice that I did NOT use the word "great.")

Overall, I think that it's in the best interest of us Californians to remain as one state.

P.S.:  You may have also hear of The State of Jefferson, which was once proposed to take a handful of counties in extreme northern California and extreme southern Oregon and combine them into a new state.  That's also never come into fruition.

@DTP
Remember, Virginia already split back in 1863.  Up until then West Virginia was part of Virginia.

Also, Maine was part of Massachusetts until Maine was admitted in 1820.

QuoteNever heard any official proposals on splitting Virginia again, but NoVA/Western VA and Richmond/Hampton Roads sure seem like completely different states to many Virginians.

No official proposals (since it's unlikely Richmond and the General Assembly would approve anyway), but it gets discussed up here from time to time and also got a cover article (http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/9947.html) in the Washingtonian magazine back in November.  They basically "draw the border" at the Rappahannock and the Blue Ridge, including Stafford, Fauquier, and Loudoun Counties in with Northern Virginia, but keeping Winchester, Front Royal, Culpeper, and Fredericksburg in with "mainstream" Virginia.

Northern Ontario and Toronto want to split out of Ontario (Yes, Province of Toronto).
Most Northern Ontario cities have considered moving to Manitoba, and that includes Thunder Bay moving to Minnesota.

I think the New York/Chicago issue is a problem in many countries, out-of-towners feel left behind because most focus seems to be on the major city, while citizens from those countries complain about taxes being spend in rural areas.

Quote
Posted on: March 18 at 10:41:31 AM
Posted by: Chris

I think the New York/Chicago issue is a problem in many countries, out-of-towners feel left behind because most focus seems to be on the major city, while citizens from those countries complain about taxes being spend in rural areas.

I agree with you there, Chris.  Part of the whole debate about Tolling I-80 in Pennsylvania involves using that money (directly or indirectly) to fund transportation including public transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.  If you've ever looked at a map, it doesn't go anywhere near either of PA's two big cities.

However, there would be no good way to split PA up on this basis.  I have, at times, though of splitting PA east-west using the Susquehanna as a starting point.  My reason is simple.  Philly is definitely an east coast city.  While Pittsburgh has more in common with Midwestern cities like Cleveland and Detroit than its cross state cousin.

QuoteTexas:  Split into east and west, with the line running somewhere around Abilene?  Though Texas seems more stable than California, is there any dissatisfaction around El Paso with the rest of the state?

speaking of Texas, if they don't split into east-west, they could follow Chuck Norris who wants to be candidate as future president of Texas
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91103 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91103)
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1250723.html (http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1250723.html)

Upstate NY wants to separate from NYC too.  The reason is simple: the bosses from NYC run our government.  Recently a lot of upstate taxpayer money was spent of a football stadium in Manhattan.

Quote@DTP
Remember, Virginia already split back in 1863.  Up until then West Virginia was part of Virginia.

That's why I said "split again."  :-P

And froggie, that border actually somewhat makes sense, though I'd move it possibly a bit farther south.

If enyone tries to split Texas I think i'll have to hurt them very badly   
   
                        LOL (maybe)

Motto of each new Texas (assuming they get split): They Messed With Texas!

Well, my comment isn't about splitting states -- it's about splitting of a county. Some residents of Fulton County (GA) -- as well as some politicians -- are talking about re-creating Milton County. Milton County joined Fulton County during the Great Depression, to save money. Fulton County is currently 70 miles, from head to tail. North Fulton forms the "head." Atlanta forms the "mid-section." South Fulton forms the "butt" or the "tail."

Milton County would be comprised of Alpharetta, Johns Creek, Milton, Mountain Park, Roswell and Sandy Springs. Most of the wealth in Fulton County is in the northern portion of the county, which would be Milton County, if the Georgia House and Senate passed the bill. Right now, Georgia can't have more than 159 counties. Some legislators have been in talks, so I've heard, to get some of the smaller south Georgia counties to consolidate (which wouldn't be a bad idea).

This is really, when it comes down to it, a racial issue. North Fulton County is mostly white, while South Fulton County is mostly black. The northern portion became fully municipalized (creating Johns Creek, Milton and Sandy Springs), so that most of their income would stay in their communities and not trickle down to South Fulton.


Be well,

Bryant

QuoteThis is really, when it comes down to it, a racial issue. North Fulton County is mostly white, while South Fulton County is mostly black. The northern portion became fully municipalized (creating Johns Creek, Milton and Sandy Springs), so that most of their income would stay in their communities and not trickle down to South Fulton.

Well, Bryant5493, I can't say that you're wrong and there is a high probability that you are correct.  However, there is another motivation that may also be coming into play.  That is simple greed.  The richer people of North Fulton don't want to subsidize their poorer neighbors to the south.

This issue of distribution of tax dollars from one area to another has been a common theme in many of the post in this topic.

mightyace said:
Well, Bryant5493, I can't say that you're wrong and there is a high probability that you are correct.  However, there is another motivation that may also be coming into play.  That is simple greed.  The richer people of North Fulton don't want to subsidize their poorer neighbors to the south.

This issue of distribution of tax dollars from one area to another has been a common theme in many of the post in this topic.

Bryant5943 says:
That's just the P.C. way of saying what I said.  :)

But, seriously, I don't think that North Fultonities should have to bear all of the burden for subsidizing the South Fulton region of the county. However, many businesses have left South Fulton, due to the influx of crime and the dilapidation of the different neighborhoods: Old National, East Point, College Park, some areas of southern Atlanta, etc. The businesses are slowly returning, so hopefully things will improve here. There is some noticeable improvement, but there is a long road ahead, I think.

In short, bite the bullet or leave. (This comment is not reflected at you, mightyace, as you're in Middle Tennessee.)


Be well,

Bryant

To add to the talk of splitting counties, there was some talk last spring about the southern half of St. Louis County in Missouri splitting away.  I'm not quite in agreement with the main reason for the split, which was residents mad at a new county program to have only one garbage hauler for small areas of the county instead of around a dozen.  I don't remember all the details, but one of the county's reasons was to reduce the number of trucks on the subdivsions streets, and I think there was an opt-out provision for subdivisions.

There are plenty of other reasons why South County should break away.  First issue is the lack of decent access to the county seat in Clayton and the nearby commercial areas.  At least with the partial completion of the Highway 40 rebuild there is a non-direct freeway route (didn't use to be an EB US 40 to NB I-170 ramp), but that option doesn't work well with I-270 overloading between I-44 and US 44.  Can't use I-55 to US 40 for an indirect freeway route from the east, as the planned access between I-55 and US 40 died.  Access using arterial streets is just as bad, with several missing links hindering access.

Then there's where the money is going/how it's being spent.  The light rail line promised as a replacement for the I-170 extension is on indefinite hold - although that's true with any light rail expansion around St. Louis right now - but there was a lot more consideration being given to a new one connecting Clayton to Westport (area near the I-270/MO 364 interchange).

But even then, I'm not sure I'd want to see South County split since it would become like St. Louis City with a four-way stop every block.

That football stadium in Manhattan was never built due to community opposition.

If you drive up I-15 in California, the road is adopted by the "State of Jefferson Chamber of Commerce".

There's also the proposed "State of Lincoln" which would've been eastern Washington and Oregon along with the northern part of Idaho.

Sykotyk

I don't see them splitting California.

Linclon! Eatern WA and Panhandle..

splitting Texas would be very stupid!!

again, motto of each new Texas, Matt, would be: THEY MESSED WITH TEXAS!  :-D

We could always give California back to Mexico.  Let them deal with the ecco-nuts and the rest of the loonies out there.  They will probably eventually end up with it anyway by default.  In all seriousness, I have been out there five times over the last 12 years.  It is probably the most interesting and beautiful place I have ever visited.  I would love to keep visiting out there, but not to LIVE.  And besides, they do have In N Out Burger, that is always a positive.  But politically and to a certain extent culturally, it is the most disfunctional mess I have ever seen.  I will quit with my comments while I am ahead, hahaha.

There was an amusing news story a few months ago about a state representative who wanted to split Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties into a state called South Florida.  :wave:

The governor just laughed at the proposal.



But, why not make the State of Carolina? It would make traveling up that area much more easier. By the time I make it through Georgia and South Carolina to the NC border, it's like I just want to kill myself.  X-( :ded:

States that only take ~1 hour or so to cross  :love:

But, why not make the State of Carolina? It would make traveling up that area much more easier. By the time I make it through Georgia and South Carolina to the NC border, it's like I just want to kill myself.   

States that only take ~1 hour or so to cross 

But wouldn't that just make one bigger state that would take much more than an hour to traverse?

Oklahoma was originally planned to be two states, roughly split down the middle of the current state, with the state of Oklahoma to the west and the State of Sequoyah to the east. But for whatever reason the people in charge of the US didn't like that and said that they had to be admitted as one state.

Why is Carolina split between two states in the first place?  I know the Dakota was originally supposed to be a single state, but only divided at statehood, mainly due to a dispute as to where the state capital would be.

North Carolina was settled at least a year before the south was, and therefore had a different government.

Quote from: signalman on May 09, 2009, 09:44:43 AM
But, why not make the State of Carolina? It would make traveling up that area much more easier. By the time I make it through Georgia and South Carolina to the NC border, it's like I just want to kill myself.   

States that only take ~1 hour or so to cross 

But wouldn't that just make one bigger state that would take much more than an hour to traverse?

Sorry, I meant it as SC, Carolina, and then NC. Three states.

Came across an article with some past proposals to split Texas.  Would be nice if it had a few maps:

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/DD/mqd1.html (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/DD/mqd1.html)

A more recent proposal came forward to split California into six states:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/02/21/california-six-states-plan-tim-draper/5673283/

QuoteA plan to divide California into six states is one step closer to a vote.

Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper got the go-ahead this week to collect signatures for his "Six Californias" plan, according to the California Secretary of State's Office.

Draper needs more than 807,000 signatures of registered voters by July 18 to get his proposal on the November ballot.

With 38 million people, California is too big and diverse to properly represent all of its residents, according to Draper's plan.

QuoteThe six states would be:

South California: San Diego and Orange counties
West California: includes Los Angeles and Santa Barbara
Central California: includes Bakersfield, Fresno and Stockton
Silicon Valley: includes San Francisco and San Jose
North California: Sacramento area
Jefferson: Redding and Eureka areas

Draper said each region has different priorities, and a separate state would allow those areas to focus on what's important to the citizens there. For example, in the south, residents are concerned about immigration, in the Central Valley the big issue is water rights and in the north it's taxation without representation, Draper said.

QuoteBut the prospect of a six-state California becoming a reality is unlikely. Even if passed by voters, Congress would still have to approve the plan, including the addition of 10 more senators.

"The implications would have tremendous repercussions at every level of government, from Congress all the way down," said Kurt Bardella, president of public relations firm Endeavor Strategic Communications and former aide to Rep. Darrell Issa. "Even just adding five more stars to the American flag."

This isn't the first proposal to split up California. Other proposals over the years have suggested making California two, three or four separate states.

Regards,
Andy

Quote from: andy3175 on March 07, 2014, 01:11:51 AM
A more recent proposal came forward to split California into six states:

It's already been beaten to death in the fictional ghetto.

Quote from: Revive 755 on March 17, 2009, 10:51:39 PM
I'm curious and wanting some opinions from those living in these states:

* Illinois:  Have the southern half split away?  I'm thinking having the dividing line somewhere near Galesburg.

Screw that.  How about placing the split along the Will-Cook County Line with NW Cook placed in "Illinois" and the rest of Crook County placed in "Chicago".

Quote from: BigMattFromTexas on May 07, 2009, 09:17:17 PM
splitting Texas would be very stupid!!

It already has been anyway.  Part went to New Mexico, parts went to Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming, and a part is now the panhandle of Oklahoma.

I remember years ago when I lived in Amarillo, there was talk then of splitting off the panhandle into a separate state with Amarillo as the capital.  They seemed to think they were pretty much forgotten in Austin.  But, just as with any splitting or secession talk in TX, it pops up, then it fades just as quickly.

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on March 18, 2009, 05:20:18 PM

QuoteTexas:  Split into east and west, with the line running somewhere around Abilene?  Though Texas seems more stable than California, is there any dissatisfaction around El Paso with the rest of the state?

speaking of Texas, if they don't split into east-west, they could follow Chuck Norris who wants to be candidate as future president of Texas
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91103 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91103)
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1250723.html (http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1250723.html)

We legally can split into 5 states.  But we don't because we're TEXAS!!!

Quote from: mightyace on March 18, 2009, 03:30:46 AM
@DTP
Remember, Virginia already split back in 1863.  Up until then West Virginia was part of Virginia.

Also, Maine was part of Massachusetts until Maine was admitted in 1820.

It's often forgotten that Kentucky was originally part of Virginia as well but was split off much earlier (with Virginia's consent, unlike the secession of certain counties in the 1860s).

As far as the current debate over California goes, I understand they're using the referendum process to put the question on the ballot. (I think they may euphemistically call it a "ballot initiative.") As an issue of California law, that might (I emphasize "might") mean the legislature would have to go along with it if the people approved it. But it doesn't mean California would actually split into multiple states. The Constitution provides that Congress has the authority to admit new states. As long as the Democrats control either house of Congress, they will never agree to split up California because the more rural parts of that state as it now exists tend not to be solidly Democrat the way the urban areas are, such that the Democrats in Congress won't want to admit states that might give their electoral votes to the Republicans and that might result in more Republican members of Congress (since each new state would, presumably, have two senators and at least one representative, the Senate would grow to 108 members if you split California into five states; the House would not grow, except maybe for an interim period prior to either the next regular elections or the next census, but the balance of power might shift).

Every so often, someone proposes to split off either Western Maryland or the Eastern Shore of Maryland as a separate state.

I wish evidence would be discovered that shows the Ohio River's course in 1792 went followed the border of Jefferson County, Ky., so we could give Louisville to Indiana.

No one ever seems to consider having California counties adjacent to, Oregon, for instance, peeling off and joining that state.  The 'overhead' in establishing a new legislature, administration, law enforcement, regulations, etc. is STAGGERING.  It would be way cheaper to sign on to an existing adjacent state if they thought they would get a better deal.

If the true costs of establishing a 'new' state were billed equally and individually to everyone wanting to secede the issue wouldn't even come up.

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 07, 2014, 09:20:42 AM
As long as the Democrats control either house of Congress, they will never agree to split up California because the more rural parts of that state as it now exists tend not to be solidly Democrat the way the urban areas are, such that the Democrats in Congress won't want to admit states that might give their electoral votes to the Republicans and that might result in more Republican members of Congress.

I think you have the partisanship reversed.  The new states created out of California would be more Democratic than Republican, at least on national issues, and therefore it's the Republicans in Congress who would oppose splitting the state.

Quote from: texaskdog on March 07, 2014, 08:27:57 AM
We legally can split into 5 states.  But we don't because we're TEXAS!!!

I've heard this as an urban legend.  Is there any truth to it?

Quote from: Jardine on March 07, 2014, 11:52:22 AM
No one ever seems to consider having California counties adjacent to, Oregon, for instance, peeling off and joining that state.  The 'overhead' in establishing a new legislature, administration, law enforcement, regulations, etc. is STAGGERING.  It would be way cheaper to sign on to an existing adjacent state if they thought they would get a better deal.

If the true costs of establishing a 'new' state were billed equally and individually to everyone wanting to secede the issue wouldn't even come up.

Absolutely true.  However, I've heard that the southern, mountainous counties of Oregon are about as alienated from Salem as the northern, mountainous counties of California are from Sacramento.

Quote from: Jardine on March 07, 2014, 11:52:22 AM
No one ever seems to consider having California counties adjacent to, Oregon, for instance, peeling off and joining that state.  The 'overhead' in establishing a new legislature, administration, law enforcement, regulations, etc. is STAGGERING.  It would be way cheaper to sign on to an existing adjacent state if they thought they would get a better deal.

If the true costs of establishing a 'new' state were billed equally and individually to everyone wanting to secede the issue wouldn't even come up.

The State of Jefferson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_%28proposed_Pacific_state%29

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp

To take the opposite viewpoint, I personally wonder why we need 2 Dakotas, or why Rhode Island and Connecticut can't merge.  Same deal with Delaware/Maryland. 

If we did that, then splitting other states would work well to keep the round number of 50.


Don't take any of this seriously, btw.

Quote from: kkt on March 07, 2014, 12:09:30 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 07, 2014, 09:20:42 AM
As long as the Democrats control either house of Congress, they will never agree to split up California because the more rural parts of that state as it now exists tend not to be solidly Democrat the way the urban areas are, such that the Democrats in Congress won't want to admit states that might give their electoral votes to the Republicans and that might result in more Republican members of Congress.

I think you have the partisanship reversed.  The new states created out of California would be more Democratic than Republican, at least on national issues, and therefore it's the Republicans in Congress who would oppose splitting the state.

However, even if you have four blue states and two red ones*, the Dems only get two senators advantage on the split over now. Importantly for the GOP, it would break up the huge block of electoral college votes that CA gets, giving them some reward for the millions of votes for their candidate.

*South California - R, West California - D, Central California - R, Silicon Valley - D, North California - D, Jefferson - D

My idea for redesigning the states (just my idea):

1. California gets split into California and Alta California. The split will be at the same latitude as Utah/Arizona.

2. Anything inside I-287 and in Long Island becomes the state of NYC.

3. Rhode Island becomes part of Connecticut.

4. Florida gets split into 3 states: Florida, Coast (anything within 20 miles of I-95), and the Conch Republic (Key West).

5. Puerto Rico and Washington DC become states.

6. Texas is split by a straight north-south line from Laredo.

7. North Dakota and South Dakota become Dakota.

Quote from: BamaZeus on March 07, 2014, 12:51:14 PM
To take the opposite viewpoint, I personally wonder why we need 2 Dakotas, or why Rhode Island and Connecticut can't merge.  Same deal with Delaware/Maryland. 

If we did that, then splitting other states would work well to keep the round number of 50.


Don't take any of this seriously, btw.

The two Dakotas is from the Dakota territory being too big for one state and neither wanting to lose the name (I presume).  Rhode Island was founded by people who were exiled from Massachusetts because they weren't in favor of a theocracy.  Delaware was settled by the Dutch and then given to Pennsylvania (the Duke who fought off Maryland's claim wanted to give William Penn's colony access to the ocean) before breaking off.  The two Carolinas is the result of one colony splitting due to cultural differences that developed.  And Vermont exists because it declared independence while New York and New Hampshire were to busy fighting the British to tend to their land dispute.

Quote from: Revive 755 on June 21, 2009, 12:39:39 PM
Came across an article with some past proposals to split Texas.  Would be nice if it had a few maps:

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/DD/mqd1.html (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/DD/mqd1.html)

I think Texas will secede from the Union before being split up.

Quote from: 1 on March 07, 2014, 02:54:48 PM
4. Florida gets split into 3 states: Florida, Coast (anything within 20 miles of I-95), and the Conch Republic (Key West).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m6ixnu1S351r6xi5l.gif&hash=e5839e07a3ff017483c5fb13572486432982a94c)

Quote from: 1 on March 07, 2014, 02:54:48 PM
5. Puerto Rico and Washington DC become states.

Puerto Rico, I'm fine with them being a U.S. state.

District of Columbia?  Not so much. 

The Maryland General Assembly ceded what is now D.C. to the federal Congress in order to create a seat for the national government. 

As did Virginia, though the Virginia part of D.C. was retroceded back to the Commonwealth in 1845, and is now Arlington County and a large chunk of the City of Alexandria. 

No reason that Congress and Maryland could not agree for most of present-day D.C. to be retroceded back to Maryland, perhaps excluding the well-defined National Capital Service Area (http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title40-section8501&num=0&edition=prelim) to remain as the federal District of Columbia.  It would probably not be fair to D.C. to retrocede it back to Maryland without the municipal D.C. government (in which case about half would go to Montgomery County and about half to Prince George's County), so the parts of the government that provide county and municipal services would remain, and retroceded D.C. would become an independent Maryland city (as Baltimore City has been for many decades).

Note that there is at least one active group (http://the51st.org/) in favor of D.C. statehood instead of retrocession, but I think it is reasonable to assume that the national Republican Party will do everything in its powers to prevent D.C. from becoming a state (never mind that it's not fair, but D.C. as a state is about 99.9% certain to elect two Democratic senators at the earliest possible opportunity).

Politics has never entered into my opposition to DC statehood.

My reasons are that the District of Columbia was intended to be the seat of government, not just another city, and everyone knows that and has known it for a couple of centuries. Don't like living in an area that doesn't have voting representation in Congress? Move to an area that does. Or have the city join Maryland.

I was under the impression that DC was established not to be any state so that it would not be biased to the state it is in.  It was chartered that way so it would remain neutral so that it would be the same to everyone.

I used to be in favor of DC statehood but over time I've switched to the position of giving the non-federal portions back to Maryland.  It would make an interesting fictional highways scenario too, particularly with the duplicated 3dis between DC and Maryland and the DC 295/MD 201 transition.

Canada seems to have no problem with Ottawa being part of Ontario.  The political climate today is very different than it was in the 1790s.  States aren't little nations any more.

WOw my backyard is always the scapegoat for splitting the state in 3 parts. Jefferson and south California hates Sacramento for politics and water. Solano county because Vallejo went bankrupt and Solano county was the capital of California back in 1850 and they also have a stake in the delta issue.

I used to work at a resort in Orlando many years ago, and people who lodged with us from places like San Francisco and Sacramento would refer to themselves as the "Real California."  When I mentioned the fact I visited LA and San Diego once, they looked at me and said "They're not California!" 

If California did split up I do not think any love would be lost between North and South there.

The same with New Jersey, my homestate.  Many from South Jersey consider us from North Jersey as a by product of New York, and do not like to say we are fellow New Jerseyians.  I think North and South Jersey could work as well.

Quote from: hbelkins on March 08, 2014, 01:47:40 PM
Politics has never entered into my opposition to DC statehood.

My reasons are that the District of Columbia was intended to be the seat of government, not just another city, and everyone knows that and has known it for a couple of centuries. Don't like living in an area that doesn't have voting representation in Congress? Move to an area that does. Or have the city join Maryland.

I have other problems with D.C. statehood, mostly related to its small land area:

• Where would D.C. as a state house its convicted felons?  Currently, they are sent to the federal  Bureau of Prisons (and there are no federal prisons in D.C.), prior to about 2000, they were sent to the District of Columbia's massive Lorton Reformatory (effectively a state penitentiary) in Lorton, Virginia.


• Where would D.C. generate its electric power?  The process to remove all power generation from the city started long ago.


• Would D.C. as a state be asked to behave like a state and build the cancelled Interstate Highway connections to Maryland (and to Virginia)?


• How would D.C. provide its drinking water?  Currently, the water supply comes from Potomac River intakes in Maryland, operated by the Washington Aqueduct, part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Getting back to your point above, I do find the colonial nature of the District of Columbia's governance to be offensive.  Why should Congress have veto power over city decisions?  Though I concede things are better now than it was when the city had a Board of Commissioners that was absolutely unaccountable to city residents.  And that includes former Mayor-for-Life Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. - as bad as Barry was for the city, he was elected to the job four times.

I do think it was a mistake (or oversight) by the Founders to not provide for people in the city to have representation in the U.S. Senate and House (and it literally took a Constitutional amendment to allow D.C. citizens to have a vote in presidential elections).

I also believe that in order for the colonial status of D.C. to be ended, retrocession is the only way - I do not believe that D.C. has any chance of getting admitted to the union as a state, and recent prosecutions and convictions of sitting members of the D.C. Council for corrupt activities does not help the chances for D.C. statehood at all.  Yes, I know that some might say that other jurisdictions in the U.S. do not lose their self-rule powers because an elected official is prosecuted (and the former county executive [roughly the same as a mayor] of neighboring Prince George's County is doing time in federal prison now for taking bribes - and on the other side of D.C., the former Governor of Virginia is under federal indictment for corruption during his term in office as well).

Quote from: vdeane on March 08, 2014, 03:16:52 PM
I used to be in favor of DC statehood but over time I've switched to the position of giving the non-federal portions back to Maryland.  It would make an interesting fictional highways scenario too, particularly with the duplicated 3dis between DC and Maryland and the DC 295/MD 201 transition.

Presumably that short section of Md. 201 would become Md. 295.  And D.C. Interstate and U.S. routes (except sections maintained by the National Park Service or the Architect of the Capitol) would be turned-over to the State Highway Administration for maintenance (which would probably result in better signing of the city's U.S. routes).

Quote from: vdeane on March 08, 2014, 03:16:52 PM
Canada seems to have no problem with Ottawa being part of Ontario.  The political climate today is very different than it was in the 1790s.  States aren't little nations any more.

Nor Brazil with Brasília (once ruled more directly by the Federal Senate of Brazil, though no longer) or Australia with Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2014, 08:40:24 PM
I have other problems with D.C. statehood, mostly related to its small land area:

• Where would D.C. as a state house its convicted felons?  Currently, they are sent to the federal  Bureau of Prisons (and there are no federal prisons in D.C.), prior to about 2000, they were sent to the District of Columbia's massive Lorton Reformatory (effectively a state penitentiary) in Lorton, Virginia.


• Where would D.C. generate its electric power?  The process to remove all power generation from the city started long ago.


• Would D.C. as a state be asked to behave like a state and build the cancelled Interstate Highway connections to Maryland (and to Virginia)?


• How would D.C. provide its drinking water?  Currently, the water supply comes from Potomac River intakes in Maryland, operated by the Washington Aqueduct, part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

I see some more fundamental problems.  First, there's the issue of the commuter tax D.C. longs to impose on suburbanites commuting into the city.  Unless D.C. were permanently prohibited from such a tax (good question whether that would be permissible), that would create problems for Federal operations in the city:

-- makes Federal jobs in the city less attractive

-- increases already-existing pressures to move offices out of D.C. to suburban locations (some like my former agency are required by law to be headquartered in D.C., but it could move stuff out to its regional offices, and my former agency even once maintained a "regional office" in Falls Church VA)

Also, D.C. would have a remarkably un-diverse economy, heavily dependent on the Federal government, and otherwise service-industry dependent, with no heavy industry, mining, or agriculture to fall back on to keep the local economy viable.  And D.C. could turn into a smoldering crater economically if the Federal government got really serious about downsizing its operations and/or moving more of them out of the D.C. area, or worse still moved the capital to a more central location like Kansas City.  Maryland, if it took back D.C., would also be hurt by those moves, but would have more to fall back on, to make that less of a calamity.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2014, 08:40:24 PM
I do think it was a mistake (or oversight) by the Founders to not provide for people in the city to have representation in the U.S. Senate and House (and it literally took a Constitutional amendment to allow D.C. citizens to have a vote in presidential elections).

Might the Founders have assumed that people with residences in the District would live there only temporarily, retaining primary residences and continuing to vote in their home states?  Obviously, that assumption went wrong rather quickly.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2014, 08:40:24 PM
I have other problems with D.C. statehood, mostly related to its small land area:

• Where would D.C. as a state house its convicted felons?  Currently, they are sent to the federal  Bureau of Prisons (and there are no federal prisons in D.C.), prior to about 2000, they were sent to the District of Columbia's massive Lorton Reformatory (effectively a state penitentiary) in Lorton, Virginia.

Lots of jurisdictions pay other places to house their prisoners.  I don't see that as such a great obstacle.

Quote

• Where would D.C. generate its electric power?  The process to remove all power generation from the city started long ago.

Lots of states are not self-sufficient in power.  I don't see that as a problem.

Quote

• Would D.C. as a state be asked to behave like a state and build the cancelled Interstate Highway connections to Maryland (and to Virginia)?

I'm not sure how that's behaving like a state (hello, New Jersey?)

Quote

• How would D.C. provide its drinking water?  Currently, the water supply comes from Potomac River intakes in Maryland, operated by the Washington Aqueduct, part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Lots of states are not self-sufficient in water, either.  (What percentage of L.A.'s water comes from the Colorado?)

Quote
Getting back to your point above, I do find the colonial nature of the District of Columbia's governance to be offensive.  Why should Congress have veto power over city decisions?  Though I concede things are better now than it was when the city had a Board of Commissioners that was absolutely unaccountable to city residents.  And that includes former Mayor-for-Life Marion Shepilov Barry, Jr. - as bad as Barry was for the city, he was elected to the job four times.

Yes.  I believe that if the people vote for bad government, they should get what they vote for.  Otherwise, they won't take it seriously next time.

Congress should have a limited veto over the city's decisions that affect Federal legislative and executive functioning.  No city cops going into the oval office during meetings with a foreign ambassador or the capitol.  Other than that, the city should broadly govern itself.

Quote
I do think it was a mistake (or oversight) by the Founders to not provide for people in the city to have representation in the U.S. Senate and House (and it literally took a Constitutional amendment to allow D.C. citizens to have a vote in presidential elections).

I also believe that in order for the colonial status of D.C. to be ended, retrocession is the only way - I do not believe that D.C. has any chance of getting admitted to the union as a state, and recent prosecutions and convictions of sitting members of the D.C. Council for corrupt activities does not help the chances for D.C. statehood at all.  Yes, I know that some might say that other jurisdictions in the U.S. do not lose their self-rule powers because an elected official is prosecuted (and the former county executive [roughly the same as a mayor] of neighboring Prince George's County is doing time in federal prison now for taking bribes - and on the other side of D.C., the former Governor of Virginia is under federal indictment for corruption during his term in office as well).

Yes, D.C. was created with a lot of land attached because the founding fathers wanted to be sure no state could exert undue influence over federal operations.  With the balance of power favoring the Feds now, that doesn't seem to be a big worry.  If it was, the Pentagon, the NSA, and all three civilian airports serving D.C. would be under state control.

Yes, back in the 19th century the half of D.C. that Virginia contributed was given back to Virginia.  D.C. could give back 90% of Maryland's contribution, and reduce D.C. to the area around the Mall, from the Supreme Court to the Lincoln Memorial and from the White House to the Jefferson Memorial.  The disenfranchised population would be tiny, countable on one's fingers.  They populated area of the city would get representatives in the House and share a vote for Maryland's senators.  No constitutional amendment needed.  (And you're right, the congressional Republicans would never approve a D.C. statehood plan that gave the Democrats two more safe senate seats).

IMHO -

DC.  DC is not a state because it totally lacks the characteristics of a state.  It is the capital.  Its only real industry is government and providing services to those that work in government.    Actually, the right thing to do would be to split the nearby counties of both Maryland and Virginia (and perhaps even West Virginia) and create a "Columbia" or whatever they want to call it, give that 2 Senators and (if my math is right about 5 House seats) and let the rest of Maryland and the rest of Virginia, which have productive economies, carry on.

If you want to play historian, really not only was that part of MD and VA mostly rural even as recently as the 40s, so was parts of DC.  And, even into the 60s people came to DC to work in government, not just politicians but what we today call policy wonks or bureaucrats, and lived a lifetime, but kept their legal residence "back home" and voted and were taxed and such three.  One of the main motivations was not so much voting, but access to state universities, since DC only had two (black and white) teachers' colleges for the locals.  This ended as the suburbs grew and people could live in VA or MD.

More broadly, leaving out discussions of red and blue, which change more quickly then you want to think, California is simply too big.  And the proper divide is not N-S but E-W.  Same can be said of all of the left coastal states. 

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2014, 08:52:41 PM
Presumably that short section of Md. 201 would become Md. 295.  And D.C. Interstate and U.S. routes (except sections maintained by the National Park Service or the Architect of the Capitol) would be turned-over to the State Highway Administration for maintenance (which would probably result in better signing of the city's U.S. routes).

I assume the same with MD 201/MD 295, but the real question is: what happens to the two I-395s and the two I-695s?  I'd renumber the MD I-395 to something else (perhaps a southern big dig type extension of I-83? They're really close together).  DC I-695 would be harder... there aren't any other even x95 routes in Maryland.  It could perhaps become an extension of I-295, with DC 295 becoming MD 201 and MD 295 renumbered to something else.

I presume the Maryland state routes that end at the DC line would continue on their logical extension on DC city streets until either hitting another state highway or a US route.

Quote from: oscar on March 08, 2014, 09:34:31 PM
Might the Founders have assumed that people with residences in the District would live there only temporarily, retaining primary residences and continuing to vote in their home states?  Obviously, that assumption went wrong rather quickly.

They did indeed.  DC was intended to be a "ceremonial city", which essentially means that it would house the federal government and otherwise be like those fake cities North Korea maintains on the DMZ.

Corrections Corporation of America operates a private prison about three miles from my house. It currently houses prisoners from Vermont, and is currently in negotiations to house prisoners from West Virginia. Kentucky quit doing business with CCA a couple of years ago. So the idea of housing prisoners elsewhere is certainly not new. I occasionally see cars with Vermont license plates in this area and I'm pretty sure I know why they are here -- and it's not county collecting or rock climbing.

Quote from: oscar on March 08, 2014, 09:34:31 PM
I see some more fundamental problems.  First, there's the issue of the commuter tax D.C. longs to impose on suburbanites commuting into the city.  Unless D.C. were permanently prohibited from such a tax (good question whether that would be permissible), that would create problems for Federal operations in the city:

-- makes Federal jobs in the city less attractive

-- increases already-existing pressures to move offices out of D.C. to suburban locations (some like my former agency are required by law to be headquartered in D.C., but it could move stuff out to its regional offices, and my former agency even once maintained a "regional office" in Falls Church VA)

I think D.C. (as a state) would be able to impose income taxes on non-resident workers, though Congress could presumably step in and forbid all states from taxing nonresident federal workers - but there are plenty of workers in D.C. that do not work for the U.S. government.  I suppose Congress could go one more step and forbid all nonresident income taxes (a lot of players in major league sports would appreciate that).

A D.C. commuter tax would cause more than a few employers to move out of D.C., probably to Northern Virginia.

Quote from: oscar on March 08, 2014, 09:34:31 PM
Also, D.C. would have a remarkably un-diverse economy, heavily dependent on the Federal government, and otherwise service-industry dependent, with no heavy industry, mining, or agriculture to fall back on to keep the local economy viable.  And D.C. could turn into a smoldering crater economically if the Federal government got really serious about downsizing its operations and/or moving more of them out of the D.C. area, or worse still moved the capital to a more central location like Kansas City.  Maryland, if it took back D.C., would also be hurt by those moves, but would have more to fall back on, to make that less of a calamity.

All correct, though D.C. did very well during the Great Recession, becoming younger and more "hip" because it was one of the few places in the nation where recent college graduates could get a job.

Quote from: oscar on March 08, 2014, 09:34:31 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2014, 08:40:24 PM
I do think it was a mistake (or oversight) by the Founders to not provide for people in the city to have representation in the U.S. Senate and House (and it literally took a Constitutional amendment to allow D.C. citizens to have a vote in presidential elections).

Might the Founders have assumed that people with residences in the District would live there only temporarily, retaining primary residences and continuing to vote in their home states?  Obviously, that assumption went wrong rather quickly.

I think the answer is yes.  But even state legislatures, many of which have truly part-time legislative bodies, still have permanent employees in state capitals and other major cities.

Quote from: hbelkins on March 09, 2014, 04:37:50 PM
So the idea of housing prisoners elsewhere is certainly not new.

Though Vermont presumably has to pay for those prisoners to be locked up by CCA.

D.C. felons are prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice (even for crimes that would be handled in state courts elsewhere), and are officially in the custody of the U.S. Attorney General. 

That would not be the case under D.C. statehood.

Corrections #1 - Actually DC has a court system just like a state. There is a federal court, with federal judges and a US attorney, puting people in federal prison and national expense.  But there is also a DC court system, with DC judges and a DC prosecutor, putting people in DC prison at DC expense.  While it it true that the federal system does some things that the state would take care of in a state, because there are federal crimes that apply only to DC and most actions taken on federal property are federal crimes, and much of DC is federal property, it is wrong to say that there is not a parallel DC system, just like in a state.

Corrections #2 -  HB won't be seeing any WV inmates.  WV's Constitution specifically prohibits "banishment" and "transportation" (that is how Australia got started) .  Our Supreme  Court has ruled that sending a state inmate to another state is "banishment" and Unconstitutional.

State Capitals - Yes, all states have capitals, and all state capitals have plenty of state workers.  but even the smallest towns that are capitals have far more diverse economies than DC.

DC income taxes - Will never happen.  Nor should it.

Quote from: SP Cook on March 09, 2014, 07:38:51 PM
Corrections #2 -  HB won't be seeing any WV inmates.  WV's Constitution specifically prohibits "banishment" and "transportation" (that is how Australia got started) .  Our Supreme  Court has ruled that sending a state inmate to another state is "banishment" and Unconstitutional.

I saw several news stories about this, in both KY and WV media. None of that was mentioned, so I wonder how they're trying to get around it. I'll have to Google to see what I come up with.

Quote from: SP Cook on March 09, 2014, 07:38:51 PM
Corrections #1 - Actually DC has a court system just like a state. There is a federal court, with federal judges and a US attorney, puting people in federal prison and national expense.  But there is also a DC court system, with DC judges and a DC prosecutor, putting people in DC prison at DC expense.  While it it true that the federal system does some things that the state would take care of in a state, because there are federal crimes that apply only to DC and most actions taken on federal property are federal crimes, and much of DC is federal property, it is wrong to say that there is not a parallel DC system, just like in a state.

There is a Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which is roughly the same as a county circuit court in most states.  But appointments to that bench (and D.C.'s own appeals courts) are not by the D.C. Mayor, but by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the Senate (but not lifetime appointments, unlike Article 3 federal judges).  There is also a D.C. prosecutor, but only with very limited authority.  Most criminal prosecutions in the District of Columbia, even in the D.C. Superior Court, and even those that are not on federal property, are by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.  Also, the District of Columbia does not have a sheriff's office - the de-facto D.C. sheriff is the U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia, which provides courthouse security for the D.C. court system.

Quote from: SP Cook on March 09, 2014, 07:38:51 PM
Corrections #2 -  HB won't be seeing any WV inmates.  WV's Constitution specifically prohibits "banishment" and "transportation" (that is how Australia got started) .  Our Supreme  Court has ruled that sending a state inmate to another state is "banishment" and Unconstitutional.

I have no problem with that, with one significant exception - state prison administrators should be able to break-up prison gang leadership by sending the top criminals to (ideally) distant states, perhaps taking a gang leader or two from the other state in return.

Quote from: SP Cook on March 09, 2014, 07:38:51 PM
State Capitals - Yes, all states have capitals, and all state capitals have plenty of state workers.  but even the smallest towns that are capitals have far more diverse economies than DC.

Annapolis has the U.S. Naval Academy, sailing, and a whole lot of quaintness, and not much else, except some state government offices (though much of the Maryland state bureaucracy is located in Baltimore City). 

Quote from: SP Cook on March 09, 2014, 07:38:51 PM
DC income taxes - Will never happen.  Nor should it.

D.C. as state, it could - but I don't think it will happen either. 

Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2014, 12:32:24 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2014, 08:52:41 PM
Presumably that short section of Md. 201 would become Md. 295.  And D.C. Interstate and U.S. routes (except sections maintained by the National Park Service or the Architect of the Capitol) would be turned-over to the State Highway Administration for maintenance (which would probably result in better signing of the city's U.S. routes).

I assume the same with MD 201/MD 295, but the real question is: what happens to the two I-395s and the two I-695s?  I'd renumber the MD I-395 to something else (perhaps a southern big dig type extension of I-83? They're really close together).  DC I-695 would be harder... there aren't any other even x95 routes in Maryland.  It could perhaps become an extension of I-295, with DC 295 becoming MD 201 and MD 295 renumbered to something else.

The Baltimore I-395 could become I-995 (though I would really like for I-97 to be I-995).   I don't see a Big Dig type connection from I-83 (Jones Falls Expressway, JFX for short) to present-day I-395 ever happening.  Among other things, there is buried railroad and the Baltimore Metro line in the way, and going though downtown Baltimore would be hideously expensive.

Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2014, 12:32:24 PM
I presume the Maryland state routes that end at the DC line would continue on their logical extension on DC city streets until either hitting another state highway or a US route.

That would make sense for many Maryland routes that end at the line, especially Md. 396, Md. 190, Md. 355, Md. 390, Md. 650, Md. 212, Md. 500, Md. 214, Md. 4, Md. 5 and Md. 210.

Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2014, 12:32:24 PM

Quote from: oscar on March 08, 2014, 09:34:31 PM
Might the Founders have assumed that people with residences in the District would live there only temporarily, retaining primary residences and continuing to vote in their home states?  Obviously, that assumption went wrong rather quickly.

They did indeed.  DC was intended to be a "ceremonial city", which essentially means that it would house the federal government and otherwise be like those fake cities North Korea maintains on the DMZ.

In that case, there should have been provision that those resident in D.C. could vote "back home" the way that our active-duty military members do.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2014, 10:10:31 PM
....

Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2014, 12:32:24 PM

Quote from: oscar on March 08, 2014, 09:34:31 PM
Might the Founders have assumed that people with residences in the District would live there only temporarily, retaining primary residences and continuing to vote in their home states?  Obviously, that assumption went wrong rather quickly.

They did indeed.  DC was intended to be a "ceremonial city", which essentially means that it would house the federal government and otherwise be like those fake cities North Korea maintains on the DMZ.

In that case, there should have been provision that those resident in D.C. could vote "back home" the way that our active-duty military members do.

Don't forget that when the Constitution was written, the people didn't vote for US Senators (state legislatures appointed them), not all states' citizens voted to select presidential electors (in many states, the legislatures appointed them), and while congressmen were elected by the people the franchise was not nearly as extensive as it is today since many states imposed various restrictions. There was no standing army like there is today, either. Most likely the idea of "voting back home" as an issue never occurred to anyone.

No doubt part of the reason for DC's status can be traced to the problems under the Articles of Confederation. The states were a lot more powerful and important back then than they are today–or perhaps a better way to put it would be that the federal government was not yet anywhere near as powerful as it has become–and the Framers didn't want a powerful state government dominating the federal government, so they gave Congress plenary authority over the district that became the seat of government.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2014, 10:10:31 PM

Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2014, 12:32:24 PMI assume the same with MD 201/MD 295, but the real question is: what happens to the two I-395s and the two I-695s?  I'd renumber the MD I-395 to something else (perhaps a southern big dig type extension of I-83? They're really close together).  DC I-695 would be harder... there aren't any other even x95 routes in Maryland.  It could perhaps become an extension of I-295, with DC 295 becoming MD 201 and MD 295 renumbered to something else.

The Baltimore I-395 could become I-995 (though I would really like for I-97 to be I-995).   I don't see a Big Dig type connection from I-83 (Jones Falls Expressway, JFX for short) to present-day I-395 ever happening.  Among other things, there is buried railroad and the Baltimore Metro line in the way, and going though downtown Baltimore would be hideously expensive.

I agree about Baltimore I-395 becoming I-995 if DC becomes part of MD. For the two I-695s, I'd extend I-97 along I-895 up to I-95, with the section of I-895 South (West) of I-97 becoming I-297. DC I-695 could then become I-895. Problem solved :bigass:

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2014, 07:56:56 AM
Don't forget that when the Constitution was written, the people didn't vote for US Senators (state legislatures appointed them), not all states' citizens voted to select presidential electors (in many states, the legislatures appointed them), and while congressmen were elected by the people the franchise was not nearly as extensive as it is today since many states imposed various restrictions. There was no standing army like there is today, either. Most likely the idea of "voting back home" as an issue never occurred to anyone.

All correct or, as you say, likely correct.

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 10, 2014, 07:56:56 AM
No doubt part of the reason for DC's status can be traced to the problems under the Articles of Confederation. The states were a lot more powerful and important back then than they are today–or perhaps a better way to put it would be that the federal government was not yet anywhere near as powerful as it has become–and the Framers didn't want a powerful state government dominating the federal government, so they gave Congress plenary authority over the district that became the seat of government.

There was also the matter of Congress not getting the police protection it needed from state or municipal law enforcement of the interim capital city of Philadelphia during the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Mutiny_of_1783), which was one of the reasons (quite possibly the most important reason) that Congress got unfettered control of D.C. in the Constitution.

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 10, 2014, 04:35:40 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2014, 10:10:31 PM

Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2014, 12:32:24 PMI assume the same with MD 201/MD 295, but the real question is: what happens to the two I-395s and the two I-695s?  I'd renumber the MD I-395 to something else (perhaps a southern big dig type extension of I-83? They're really close together).  DC I-695 would be harder... there aren't any other even x95 routes in Maryland.  It could perhaps become an extension of I-295, with DC 295 becoming MD 201 and MD 295 renumbered to something else.

The Baltimore I-395 could become I-995 (though I would really like for I-97 to be I-995).   I don't see a Big Dig type connection from I-83 (Jones Falls Expressway, JFX for short) to present-day I-395 ever happening.  Among other things, there is buried railroad and the Baltimore Metro line in the way, and going though downtown Baltimore would be hideously expensive.

I agree about Baltimore I-395 becoming I-995 if DC becomes part of MD. For the two I-695s, I'd extend I-97 along I-895 up to I-95, with the section of I-895 South (West) of I-97 becoming I-297. DC I-695 could then become I-895. Problem solved :bigass:

I would ask VDOT to upgrade all of Va. 110 to a full freeway (it is somewhere between an expressway and an arterial today, with one at-grade intersection), then route I-66 along 110 to present-day I-395, then east across D.C. to D.C. 295/I-295.  The Third Street Tunnel could become I-166.

Perhaps we are getting perilously close to fictional freeways?

Quote from: SP Cook on March 09, 2014, 12:04:04 PMActually, the right thing to do would be to split the nearby counties of both Maryland and Virginia (and perhaps even West Virginia) and create a "Columbia" or whatever they want to call it, give that 2 Senators and (if my math is right about 5 House seats) and let the rest of Maryland and the rest of Virginia, which have productive economies, carry on.

Maryland and Virginia legislators would have to agree to that, and they won't.  They know how the "productive economies" of places like Baltimore City are paid for.

What does Virginia have to do with it?  All the land Virginia originally contributed to DC they got back in 1847.

Quote from: kkt on March 12, 2014, 12:14:32 AM
What does Virginia have to do with it?  All the land Virginia originally contributed to DC they got back in 1847.

And they'd have to give back that land, and more, for an expanded "Columbia" that would include D.C.'s suburbs now in both Maryland and Virginia.

Quote from: oscar on March 12, 2014, 12:50:41 AM

Quote from: kkt on March 12, 2014, 12:14:32 AM
What does Virginia have to do with it?  All the land Virginia originally contributed to DC they got back in 1847.

And they'd have to give back that land, and more, for an expanded "Columbia" that would include D.C.'s suburbs now in both Maryland and Virginia.

Southern Virginia might actually go for it, but it would make this the third time Virginia was split to create another state.  The first two were Kentucky and West Virginia.

It's better, IMHO, to simply give Maryland back most of what is now DC minus the main governmental center along The Mall (White House, monuments, museums, Supreme Court, and Capitol Building).

QuoteSouthern Virginia might actually go for it,

No they won't.  They hate Northern Virginia, but they also know that Northern Virginia butters their bread.  IIRC, something like 40-45% of state revenue comes from Northern Virginia.  The rest of the state isn't going to give up their financial lifeline.

Quote from: froggie on March 12, 2014, 01:26:49 PM

QuoteSouthern Virginia might actually go for it,

No they won't.  They hate Northern Virginia, but they also know that Northern Virginia butters their bread.  IIRC, something like 40-45% of state revenue comes from Northern Virginia.  The rest of the state isn't going to give up their financial lifeline.

A bit of a different situation than Illinois then.  If downstate Illinois ever got the chance to kick Chicago out, they'd take it in a heartbeat.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 08, 2014, 08:52:41 PMAustralia with Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.

ACT is specifically to make the Capital not part of a state. OK, it gained 'responsible government' in 1988, but it is still denied (unlike other territories) an Administrator (fulfilling executive functions), instead being done by the Governor-General (in the stead of the Queen). Recently, the parliament relieved the Governor-General his veto power, but changed it so that they can veto any ACT laws by a majority in both houses.

In many ways it is like DC, though is perhaps given a little bit more autonomy. Plus they get 2 senators (same as NT - the states get 12 each), and representatives in the federal government.

Quote from: Brandon on March 12, 2014, 02:20:28 PM
A bit of a different situation than Illinois then.  If downstate Illinois ever got the chance to kick Chicago out, they'd take it in a heartbeat.

Kinda like how I feel about Louisville.

I do not, however, share that sentiment about northern Kentucky

I would like to see New York City split from New York State.

I know that would be a disaster for the city itself without the rest of the state subsidizing it as it currently does, so NYC would never ever even remotely consider it.

Quote from: roadman65 on March 12, 2014, 06:41:48 PM
I would like to see New York City split from New York State.

I know that would be a disaster for the city itself without the rest of the state subsidizing it as it currently does, so NYC would never ever even remotely consider it.

Everything inside I-287 and all of Long Island should become part of the state of NYC.

Side effect: Connecticut and the state of NYC are within a mile but do not touch.

Quote from: roadman65 on March 12, 2014, 06:41:48 PM
I would like to see New York City split from New York State.

I know that would be a disaster for the city itself without the rest of the state subsidizing it as it currently does, so NYC would never ever even remotely consider it.

Funny, NYC thinks they subsidize the rest of the state.

I think we should reunite the Louisiana Purchase.  :D

Quote from: vdeane on March 08, 2014, 03:16:52 PM
States aren't little nations any more.

If the federal government keeps operating outside of its constitutional authority and lording over the states like it is now, they will be again. As it is, states are increasingly passing laws to nullify various federal statutes. The logical end result of this movement is someone outright seceding. And we know how that went the last time...

Quote from: jbnv on March 12, 2014, 09:24:25 PM
I think we should reunite the Louisiana Purchase.  :D

That might be a bit much.

More reasonable (but still will never happen): Unite NV, ID, MT, ND, SD, WY, CO, UT, NE, and KS. The capital will be Denver. I-29 will not enter the state; instead, Minnesota and Iowa will extend to I-29. Las Vegas will become part of California.

Now what should this huge rural state be called? Ruralland? Unorganized Territory? Banana Republic? Or just one of the state names currently used?



Another idea: Unite New England into the state of New England. It takes New York east of the Hudson (north of I-287), so the western border of the state of New England would be the Hudson River. The capital will be Boston.

Quote from: 1 on March 12, 2014, 09:36:02 PM

Quote from: jbnv on March 12, 2014, 09:24:25 PM
I think we should reunite the Louisiana Purchase.  :D

Now what should this huge rural state be called? Ruralland? Unorganized Territory? Banana Republic? Or just one of the state names currently used?

Easy: Deseret.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Deseret

Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 12, 2014, 11:13:24 PM

Quote from: 1 on March 12, 2014, 09:36:02 PM

Quote from: jbnv on March 12, 2014, 09:24:25 PM
I think we should reunite the Louisiana Purchase.  :D

Now what should this huge rural state be called? Ruralland? Unorganized Territory? Banana Republic? Or just one of the state names currently used?

Easy: Deseret.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Deseret

Nah, the libertarians would hate the Mormons.
Trust me, I live here.

Quote from: 1 on March 12, 2014, 09:36:02 PM
Another idea: Unite New England into the state of New England. It takes New York east of the Hudson (north of I-287), so the western border of the state of New England would be the Hudson River. The capital will be Boston.

Charles II tried it.  It didn't go so well.

Quote from: jbnv on March 12, 2014, 09:24:25 PM
I think we should reunite the Louisiana Purchase.  :D

Quote from: vdeane on March 08, 2014, 03:16:52 PM
States aren't little nations any more.

If the federal government keeps operating outside of its constitutional authority and lording over the states like it is now, they will be again. As it is, states are increasingly passing laws to nullify various federal statutes. The logical end result of this movement is someone outright seceding. And we know how that went the last time...

Actually, most liberals would be very happy if the red states just left, and most conservatives would be even happier if the blue states just left, so a split might just be in the future.  Maybe the northeast could just go join Canada.  That would be nice.

Quote from: vdeane on March 12, 2014, 11:39:44 PM

Quote from: 1 on March 12, 2014, 09:36:02 PM
Another idea: Unite New England into the state of New England. It takes New York east of the Hudson (north of I-287), so the western border of the state of New England would be the Hudson River. The capital will be Boston.

Charles II tried it.  It didn't go so well.

Quote from: jbnv on March 12, 2014, 09:24:25 PM
I think we should reunite the Louisiana Purchase.  :D

Quote from: vdeane on March 08, 2014, 03:16:52 PM
States aren't little nations any more.

If the federal government keeps operating outside of its constitutional authority and lording over the states like it is now, they will be again. As it is, states are increasingly passing laws to nullify various federal statutes. The logical end result of this movement is someone outright seceding. And we know how that went the last time...

Actually, most liberals would be very happy if the red states just left, and most conservatives would be even happier if the blue states just left, so a split might just be in the future.  Maybe the northeast could just go join Canada.  That would be nice.

There'd be someone with national pride that would try to knit it back together... even though the center of the country would not mind secession in any way whatsoever.

On to splitting states: split SD down the river.

Quote from: 1 on March 12, 2014, 09:36:02 PM
instead, Minnesota and Iowa will extend to I-29.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dumontbooks.com%2Fdumont%2Fimages%2Fitems%2F26538.jpg&hash=54b15f3136101bc63ab5e2189aea9cdfb4738d7b)

Quote from: Molandfreak on March 13, 2014, 12:01:28 PM

Quote from: 1 on March 12, 2014, 09:36:02 PM
instead, Minnesota and Iowa will extend to I-29.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dumontbooks.com%2Fdumont%2Fimages%2Fitems%2F26538.jpg&hash=54b15f3136101bc63ab5e2189aea9cdfb4738d7b)

Yes! Remove East River!

I gotta get some cool maps for my cube at work

Quote from: english si on March 12, 2014, 04:01:20 PM
In many ways it is like DC, though is perhaps given a little bit more autonomy. Plus they get 2 senators (same as NT - the states get 12 each), and representatives in the federal government.

D.C. gets no representation at all in the U.S. Senate, even though it has higher population than at least one state.  Its only representation in the U.S. House of Representatives is a so-called "non-voting" delegate.

QuoteThere'd be someone with national pride that would try to knit it back together... even though the center of the country would not mind secession in any way whatsoever.

They may not mind it, but as a servicemember I can't quite stomach the thought of secession.  The last time someone seriously entertained that concept in this country, we wound up with several hundred thousand deaths.  Imagine how bad it would be in today's world...

QuoteD.C. gets no representation at all in the U.S. Senate, even though it has higher population than at least one state.

Higher than 2 states (WY, VT) per Census estimates.  If not for the Bakken oil boom, they'd be closing in on a third (ND...the same oil boom finally pushed Montana over 1 million).

Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2014, 06:59:01 AM

QuoteThere'd be someone with national pride that would try to knit it back together... even though the center of the country would not mind secession in any way whatsoever.

They may not mind it, but as a servicemember I can't quite stomach the thought of secession.  The last time someone seriously entertained that concept in this country, we wound up with several hundred thousand deaths.  Imagine how bad it would be in today's world...

Agreed, even though I have never worn a military uniform.  We have a federal system for a reason - to allow the various states to do many things the way that they want to, subject to limitations of the Constitution and federal laws.

Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2014, 06:59:01 AM

QuoteD.C. gets no representation at all in the U.S. Senate, even though it has higher population than at least one state.

Higher than 2 states (WY, VT) per Census estimates.  If not for the Bakken oil boom, they'd be closing in on a third (ND...the same oil boom finally pushed Montana over 1 million).

I knew D.C. has long had more population than Wyoming (576,412 according to 2012 estimate).

The estimated D.C. population (632,323) is currently a little higher than Vermont (626,011), but until the 2020 Census is done, I am cautious about making such statements. 

Quote from: roadman65 on March 08, 2014, 06:37:11 PM
I used to work at a resort in Orlando many years ago, and people who lodged with us from places like San Francisco and Sacramento would refer to themselves as the "Real California."  When I mentioned the fact I visited LA and San Diego once, they looked at me and said "They're not California!" 

If California did split up I do not think any love would be lost between North and South there.

The same with New Jersey, my homestate.  Many from South Jersey consider us from North Jersey as a by product of New York, and do not like to say we are fellow New Jerseyians.  I think North and South Jersey could work as well.

www.capradio.org/articles/2014/03/13/court-approves-california-delta-smelt-protections/ (http://www.capradio.org/articles/2014/03/13/court-approves-california-delta-smelt-protections/)

Here's the reason why Jefferson and Southern California hates Sacramento county and Solano county its because these two counties have to deal with the Delta Smelt Issue and water conservation issue.

But if Solano County had a 7.x Quake on the Green Valley Fault Southern California and South San Joaquin Valley Can't get water at all for some time. Its because the Green Valley Fault is closest to the western edge of the Sacramento Delta. earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/ucerf/images/2008probabilities-lrg.jpg

I don't think its possible for California to split into 3 parts because Jefferson needs the North end of Sacramento River somehow for its water supply. Also if that happens how will South CSU and South UC deal with the fact that funding is not decided from Sacramento but from a future state capital who stability is in question.

Also back to highways how will state route shields look like if California split into 3 parts. The Spade shield is a Sacramento, Solano, Bay area thing because of the Gold Rush of 1849. Jefferson North of Redding would use President Jeffersons face. But For South California a Mission Bell as a state route shield or a new state shape at its route shield? I'm Not sure with that one.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 14, 2014, 10:34:54 AM

Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2014, 06:59:01 AM

QuoteThere'd be someone with national pride that would try to knit it back together... even though the center of the country would not mind secession in any way whatsoever.

They may not mind it, but as a servicemember I can't quite stomach the thought of secession.  The last time someone seriously entertained that concept in this country, we wound up with several hundred thousand deaths.  Imagine how bad it would be in today's world...

Agreed, even though I have never worn a military uniform.  We have a federal system for a reason - to allow the various states to do many things the way that they want to, subject to limitations of the Constitution and federal laws.

Oh, I agree with this too. My intent was to just say that there are people who would want to leave... crazy though that might be.

Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2014, 06:59:01 AM

They may not mind it, but as a servicemember I can't quite stomach the thought of secession.  The last time someone seriously entertained that concept in this country, we wound up with several hundred thousand deaths.  Imagine how bad it would be in today's world...

man, that Conch Republic really put up a fight, didn't they.

honestly, I think economic and political reality would prevent a full secession.  sure, people would love to have Texas leave the union, or have Florida sawn off Bugs Bunny style...

but we'd realistically end up with a Europe-like set of protocols (Schengen, economic union, court at Brussels, guarantees of basic rights a la EU Charter, etc).  everyone would grumble about having to bail out GreeLouisiana again but it would be necessary just to simply keep the world's economy and society stable.  and such stability agreements would keep a smaller state from going full Uganda on social issues. 

so, the extremists who would - from one side or the other - love to see "Canuckistan" and "Jesusland" be two separate countries, but in reality I doubt the situation would change in any meaningful way.  there just aren't enough extremists to force a war.  the Great Militia of the Independent Republic of Texas would squash those who would want to make outright war with Both Mexicos, New and Classic.

Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2014, 06:59:01 AM
They may not mind it, but as a servicemember I can't quite stomach the thought of secession.  The last time someone seriously entertained that concept in this country, we wound up with several hundred thousand deaths.  Imagine how bad it would be in today's world...

Would there be an attempted armed suppression of the secession these days, or would the federal government allow it to happen, unlike the 1860s? I'm not convinced there would be another civil war if secession was attempted. There are a lot of northerners who'd love to see the south and "flyover country" gone from their country.

Quote from: jbnv on March 12, 2014, 09:24:25 PM
I think we should reunite the Louisiana Purchase.  :D

If it means we all get KDOT as our DOT, do it.

Quote from: vdeane on March 12, 2014, 11:39:44 PM

Quote from: 1 on March 12, 2014, 09:36:02 PM
If the federal government keeps operating outside of its constitutional authority and lording over the states like it is now, they will be again. As it is, states are increasingly passing laws to nullify various federal statutes. The logical end result of this movement is someone outright seceding. And we know how that went the last time...

Actually, most liberals would be very happy if the red states just left, and most conservatives would be even happier if the blue states just left, so a split might just be in the future.  Maybe the northeast could just go join Canada.  That would be nice.

Nullification simply isn't a valid legal strategy, as South Carolina learned during the Jackson administration.

As for secession, in a proposed red-state blue-state divided US (which I've pondered as a thought experiment before), I would making moving out of Oklahoma my top priority. I do not trust the state government to act in my best interest without the federal government there to keep it in check. Missouri would be my first choice, assuming it stayed in the US; if it joined the secession movement, I'd probably go for Michigan. However, my girlfriend grew up in California, and still has ties to it, so I would probably end up there instead.

Quote from: roadman65 on March 12, 2014, 06:41:48 PM
I would like to see New York City split from New York State.

I know that would be a disaster for the city itself without the rest of the state subsidizing it as it currently does, so NYC would never ever even remotely consider it.

Quote from: Brandon on March 12, 2014, 02:20:28 PM

Quote from: froggie on March 12, 2014, 01:26:49 PM

QuoteSouthern Virginia might actually go for it,

No they won't.  They hate Northern Virginia, but they also know that Northern Virginia butters their bread.  IIRC, something like 40-45% of state revenue comes from Northern Virginia.  The rest of the state isn't going to give up their financial lifeline.

A bit of a different situation than Illinois then.  If downstate Illinois ever got the chance to kick Chicago out, they'd take it in a heartbeat.

What's next? Seattle separating from WA? Atlanta separating from GA?

And focusing on the latter, where would the new capital of GA be, if the state no longer included Atlanta?

Quote from: Henry on March 14, 2014, 02:38:31 PM
And focusing on the latter, where would the new capital of GA be, if the state no longer included Atlanta?

Athens. Therefore making Georgia and Greece have the same capital.

Quote from: Henry on March 14, 2014, 02:38:31 PM
And focusing on the latter, where would the new capital of GA be, if the state no longer included Atlanta?

Savannah could work...

Quote from: Henry on March 14, 2014, 02:38:31 PM
And focusing on the latter, where would the new capital of GA be, if the state no longer included Atlanta?

They should build a new capital named Tbilisi just to fuck with everyone.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 14, 2014, 02:47:15 PM

Quote from: Henry on March 14, 2014, 02:38:31 PM
And focusing on the latter, where would the new capital of GA be, if the state no longer included Atlanta?

They should build a new capital named Tbilisi just to fuck with everyone.

The funny thing is, Tbilisi is a sister city of Atlanta.

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 14, 2014, 02:47:15 PM

Quote from: Henry on March 14, 2014, 02:38:31 PM
And focusing on the latter, where would the new capital of GA be, if the state no longer included Atlanta?

They should build a new capital named Tbilisi just to fuck with everyone.

If they did that, would Russia accidentally invade the US?

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 13, 2014, 11:16:38 PM

Quote from: english si on March 12, 2014, 04:01:20 PM
In many ways it is like DC, though is perhaps given a little bit more autonomy. Plus they get 2 senators (same as NT - the states get 12 each), and representatives in the federal government.

D.C. gets no representation at all in the U.S. Senate, even though it has higher population than at least one state.  Its only representation in the U.S. House of Representatives is a so-called "non-voting" delegate.

I believe DC elects a "shadow senator." Last night I was mocking a campaign sign outside Verizon Center that advertised a candidate for "US Senate." It reminded me of how Delegate Norton pretentiously refers to herself as "Congresswoman."

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 15, 2014, 02:11:37 PM
I believe DC elects a "shadow senator." Last night I was mocking a campaign sign outside Verizon Center that advertised a candidate for "US Senate." It reminded me of how Delegate Norton pretentiously refers to herself as "Congresswoman."

D.C. has two shadow senators, not taken seriously by most.

Columnist George Will referred to Rev. Jesse Jackson (formerly a D.C. resident and onetime D.C. shadow senator) as "His Shadowship," (http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1990/Jackson-Seeks-New-Political-Role-as-Shadow-Senator/id-6d3416dde5d8a17a282edc32940e9856) at least in part in reaction to an incident at the U.S. Capitol where the U.S. Capitol Police declined to give Rev. Jackson the deference that he felt he deserved as a U.S. senator (apparently the Capitol cops gave him none at all, since a "shadow" senator is not a senator as far as they are concerned).

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 18, 2014, 12:46:33 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 15, 2014, 02:11:37 PM
I believe DC elects a "shadow senator." Last night I was mocking a campaign sign outside Verizon Center that advertised a candidate for "US Senate." It reminded me of how Delegate Norton pretentiously refers to herself as "Congresswoman."

D.C. has two shadow senators, not taken seriously by most.

Columnist George Will referred to Rev. Jesse Jackson (formerly a D.C. resident and onetime D.C. shadow senator) as "His Shadowship," (http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1990/Jackson-Seeks-New-Political-Role-as-Shadow-Senator/id-6d3416dde5d8a17a282edc32940e9856) at least in part in reaction to an incident at the U.S. Capitol where the U.S. Capitol Police declined to give Rev. Jackson the deference that he felt he deserved as a U.S. senator (apparently the Capitol cops gave him none at all, since a "shadow" senator is not a senator as far as they are concerned).

LOL!  I'm surprised they didn't refer to Rev. Jackson as "his majesty" for being the "King of Beers (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Bud-Man-Jackson-Slipping.html)".

So, here's an idea for redrawing the lines of how state lines could be redrawn for NY state.

-The 5 boroughs, Nassau, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, and Dutchess Counties become a state, and trade Suffolk County to CT for Fairfield County, since Fairfield County residents think they're New Yorkers and many people in Suffolk County identify with New England more.

-The rest of Upstate becomes its own state.

This reads like a history of 1890s New Jersey.   Loopholes had come to exist that facilitated easy municipal splits, and people  began seceding from their respective townships with abandon over issues like school funding, country folks not wanting to pay for utilities in more developed areas, etc.

Bergen County alone went from 12 to 70 municipalities, with an average size today of 3.5 square miles.  New Jersey in total eventually ended up with 567 municipalities (now back down to 565).

The result of this is a lot of redundant government, and government is expensive even if you love big government. Two police departments each covering 3.5 square miles are more expensive, for example, than one covering 7.  Same with the rest of municipal departments.

The seceding New Jersey towns thought they were going to save money in the long run, just as I'm sure many state-secession proponents do.  But there's a lot of Federal obligations people take for granted, from defense to Social Security to the TVA, etc., that may be onerous now but would very difficult to manage and expensive to duplicate on a smaller scale. 

Likewise, the duplicate costs of running the states of East and West Washington may well similiarly add up to more than those of running Wasington alone.

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 15, 2014, 02:11:37 PM
I believe DC elects a "shadow senator." Last night I was mocking a campaign sign outside Verizon Center that advertised a candidate for "US Senate." It reminded me of how Delegate Norton pretentiously refers to herself as "Congresswoman."

I thought there were two shadow Senators, neither of whom is taken seriously, and I'm not sure they're even allowed on the Senate floor.

Delegate Norton at least has committee voting privileges, which gives her some say on everything short of final passage of legislation, so her pretensions are less silly than those of the shadow Senators.  Indeed, when the Dems controlled the House, didn't she chair the committee overseeing D.C.?  (She's still there, only as ranking member rather than chair.)

Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 19, 2014, 07:52:56 AM
This reads like a history of 1890s New Jersey.   Loopholes had come to exist that facilitated easy municipal splits, and people  began seceding from their respective townships with abandon over issues like school funding, country folks not wanting to pay for utilities in more developed areas, etc.

Bergen County alone went from 12 to 70 municipalities, with an average size today of 3.5 square miles.  New Jersey in total eventually ended up with 567 municipalities (now back down to 565).

The result of this is a lot of redundant government, and government is expensive even if you love big government. Two police departments each covering 3.5 square miles are more expensive, for example, than one covering 7.  Same with the rest of municipal departments.

The seceding New Jersey towns thought they were going to save money in the long run, just as I'm sure many state-secession proponents do.  But there's a lot of Federal obligations people take for granted, from defense to Social Security to the TVA, etc., that may be onerous now but would very difficult to manage and expensive to duplicate on a smaller scale. 

Likewise, the duplicate costs of running the states of East and West Washington may well similiarly add up to more than those of running Wasington alone.

No doubt that's how NJ has a number of 'donut' towns - small towns completely within a larger town around it.

NJ also has numerous school districts - there are more school districts (603) than there are towns (565) in this state.  An amazing 13 school districts don't even have any students!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boroughitis

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2014, 08:34:02 AM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 19, 2014, 07:52:56 AM
This reads like a history of 1890s New Jersey.   Loopholes had come to exist that facilitated easy municipal splits, and people  began seceding from their respective townships with abandon over issues like school funding, country folks not wanting to pay for utilities in more developed areas, etc.

Bergen County alone went from 12 to 70 municipalities, with an average size today of 3.5 square miles.  New Jersey in total eventually ended up with 567 municipalities (now back down to 565).

The result of this is a lot of redundant government, and government is expensive even if you love big government. Two police departments each covering 3.5 square miles are more expensive, for example, than one covering 7.  Same with the rest of municipal departments.

The seceding New Jersey towns thought they were going to save money in the long run, just as I'm sure many state-secession proponents do.  But there's a lot of Federal obligations people take for granted, from defense to Social Security to the TVA, etc., that may be onerous now but would very difficult to manage and expensive to duplicate on a smaller scale. 

Likewise, the duplicate costs of running the states of East and West Washington may well similiarly add up to more than those of running Wasington alone.

No doubt that's how NJ has a number of 'donut' towns - small towns completely within a larger town around it.

NJ also has numerous school districts - there are more school districts (603) than there are towns (565) in this state.  An amazing 13 school districts don't even have any students!

More government per square mile than anywhere on earth, probably.

Alan Karcher, the late Assembly speaker, wrote a book about it called "New Jersey's Multiple Municipal Madness," a title that frankly is more exciting than the material.  He takes pains to advocate for municipal consolidation, but the way folks in the postage-stamp boroughs talk about it, he may as well urge them to marry their dogs.  There's a ridiculous overdeveloped sense of identification with these little boroughs that convinces people the town a mile away is so different they could never be a part of it. 

Can you imagine how much more polarized states would grow if we started splitting them up on political lines?

Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 19, 2014, 11:50:54 AM
Can you imagine how much more polarized states would grow if we started splitting them up on political lines?

Naah, SD's already pretty polarized.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 10, 2014, 06:36:00 PM

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 10, 2014, 04:35:40 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 09, 2014, 10:10:31 PM

Quote from: vdeane on March 09, 2014, 12:32:24 PMI assume the same with MD 201/MD 295, but the real question is: what happens to the two I-395s and the two I-695s?  I'd renumber the MD I-395 to something else (perhaps a southern big dig type extension of I-83? They're really close together).  DC I-695 would be harder... there aren't any other even x95 routes in Maryland.  It could perhaps become an extension of I-295, with DC 295 becoming MD 201 and MD 295 renumbered to something else.

The Baltimore I-395 could become I-995 (though I would really like for I-97 to be I-995).   I don't see a Big Dig type connection from I-83 (Jones Falls Expressway, JFX for short) to present-day I-395 ever happening.  Among other things, there is buried railroad and the Baltimore Metro line in the way, and going though downtown Baltimore would be hideously expensive.

I agree about Baltimore I-395 becoming I-995 if DC becomes part of MD. For the two I-695s, I'd extend I-97 along I-895 up to I-95, with the section of I-895 South (West) of I-97 becoming I-297. DC I-695 could then become I-895. Problem solved :bigass:

I would ask VDOT to upgrade all of Va. 110 to a full freeway (it is somewhere between an expressway and an arterial today, with one at-grade intersection), then route I-66 along 110 to present-day I-395, then east across D.C. to D.C. 295/I-295.  The Third Street Tunnel could become I-166.

Perhaps we are getting perilously close to fictional freeways?

Can there be a fictional and off-topic post?

To speak of this thread, I'd say the right thing to do is to retrocede the residential areas of DC into Maryland.  And the old DC should be its own County or independent city (like Baltimore)

What to call it?  There's already Washington, MD and Columbia, MD so maybe Washington DC, MD.  The  area not retroceded can be known as the Federal District, to include the Capitol, the White House, and the Mall.

I strongly feel that all limited access highways, even parkways, should have some sort of numbered shield, even if its not a state highway.  So the entire roadway of I-295/MD-295 should be numbered 295.  For the federal portion of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, maybe Federal-295.  Designed with a special shield for all NPS parkways (including the George Washington Parkway, and a few others).

I-395 in Baltimore needs renumbered to I-995.  I-695 in DC can be renumbered to I-595. 

What to do about I-595 in MD?  Well, it's a hidden designation that everyone calls US 50.  So you can either drop I-595 from US 50 or you can route the hidden designation along US 50 and (former) DC-295 to connect with the new I-595 designation along the 11th Street bridge.

Federal Route 295?  :bigass:

In a timely article based on how this thread progressed, the Star Ledger of NJ reports today on 10 towns in NJ with odd geographies.  In some cases, various parts of the town are completely seperate from each other.  Not by railroad tracks or highways, but by other towns!

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/njs_weird_geography_10_oddly-shaped_municipalities.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2014, 03:43:19 PM
In a timely article based on how this thread progressed, the Star Ledger of NJ reports today on 10 towns in NJ with odd geographies.  In some cases, various parts of the town are completely seperate from each other.  Not by railroad tracks or highways, but by other towns!

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/njs_weird_geography_10_oddly-shaped_municipalities.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Interesting read.  I had always wondered why South Hackensack had 3 disconnected sections.

Also, the municipality that I live in is mentioned in the article  :sombrero:

Quote from: signalman on March 24, 2014, 05:11:04 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2014, 03:43:19 PM
In a timely article based on how this thread progressed, the Star Ledger of NJ reports today on 10 towns in NJ with odd geographies.  In some cases, various parts of the town are completely seperate from each other.  Not by railroad tracks or highways, but by other towns!

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/njs_weird_geography_10_oddly-shaped_municipalities.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Interesting read.  I had always wondered why South Hackensack had 3 disconnected sections.

Also, the municipality that I live in is mentioned in the article  :sombrero:

Very interesting.  I didn't know of other fragmented towns left besides South Hackensack.   Washington Township, also in Bergen, had similar exclaves left over from the boroughitis days.  Eventually the last was transferred to Park Ridge in the 50s, but it appeared on the USGS 7.5-minute topo of the area for quite some time after.

Quote from: mrsman on March 23, 2014, 01:00:12 PM
Can there be a fictional and off-topic post?

If the moderators agree.

Quote from: mrsman on March 23, 2014, 01:00:12 PM
To speak of this thread, I'd say the right thing to do is to retrocede the residential areas of DC into Maryland.  And the old DC should be its own County or independent city (like Baltimore)

I would like to see all of what is now D.C. retroceded, except for the already-defined National Capital Service Area (http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title40-section8501&num=0&edition=prelim), "The National Capital Service Area is in the District of Columbia and includes the principal federal monuments, the White House, the Capitol Building, the United States Supreme Court Building, and the federal executive, legislative, and judicial office buildings located adjacent to the Mall and the Capitol Building ..."

QuoteWhat to call it?  There's already Washington, MD and Columbia, MD so maybe Washington DC, MD.  The  area not retroceded can be known as the Federal District, to include the Capitol, the White House, and the Mall.

I would just continue to call it Washington, D.C. (as far as the Postal Service is concerned), to avoid confusion with the long-ago established Washington County, Maryland.  Legally, District of Columbia (Maryland) and District of Columbia (federal) might work. 

QuoteI strongly feel that all limited access highways, even parkways, should have some sort of numbered shield, even if its not a state highway.  So the entire roadway of I-295/MD-295 should be numbered 295.  For the federal portion of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, maybe Federal-295.  Designed with a special shield for all NPS parkways (including the George Washington Parkway, and a few others).

The National Park Service has written policies in place that actively discourage shields, though I agree with your reasoning above.

QuoteI-395 in Baltimore needs renumbered to I-995.  I-695 in DC can be renumbered to I-595. 

O.K.

QuoteWhat to do about I-595 in MD?  Well, it's a hidden designation that everyone calls US 50.  So you can either drop I-595 from US 50 or you can route the hidden designation along US 50 and (former) DC-295 to connect with the new I-595 designation along the 11th Street bridge.

Since it is not signed, how about I-1195 for what is now I-595?

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 25, 2014, 10:45:41 AM

Quote from: mrsman on March 23, 2014, 01:00:12 PM
What to do about I-595 in MD?  Well, it's a hidden designation that everyone calls US 50.  So you can either drop I-595 from US 50 or you can route the hidden designation along US 50 and (former) DC-295 to connect with the new I-595 designation along the 11th Street bridge.

Since it is not signed, how about I-1195 for what is now I-595?

Or simply eliminate the hidden I-595 designation, since it no longer has much if any funding or other relevance.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 25, 2014, 10:45:41 AM
The National Park Service has written policies in place that actively discourage shields, though I agree with your reasoning above.

(https://www.aaroads.com/southeast/north_carolina074/us-074_wb_exit_064_04.jpg)

"Actively discourage" ≠ "prohibit."

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 25, 2014, 12:15:50 PM
"Actively discourage" ≠ "prohibit."

Unless poo.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2014, 03:43:19 PM
In a timely article based on how this thread progressed, the Star Ledger of NJ reports today on 10 towns in NJ with odd geographies.  In some cases, various parts of the town are completely seperate from each other.  Not by railroad tracks or highways, but by other towns!

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/njs_weird_geography_10_oddly-shaped_municipalities.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Interesting how much curiosity is given to the "donut-and-hole" phenomenon, especially when it involves a borough inside a township. Seems to me that's a perfectly commonplace type of arrangement, in neighboring Pennsylvania for example, where almost every borough is a hole within a township donut. (It's true, though, that the two types of municipalities are less similar to each other in PA than they are in NJ.)

Of course, in also-neighboring New York, you don't get this effects aren't holes inside of town donuts, but more like cherries on top of town sundaes.

I need to go get breakfast now.

Quote from: empirestate on March 25, 2014, 12:57:35 PM
Interesting how much curiosity is given to the "donut-and-hole" phenomenon, especially when it involves a borough inside a township. Seems to me that's a perfectly commonplace type of arrangement, in neighboring Pennsylvania for example, where almost every borough is a hole within a township donut. (It's true, though, that the two types of municipalities are less similar to each other in PA than they are in NJ.)

Yeah, seems perfectly reasonable to me. Of course I grew up close to two of these (Englishtown in Manalapan and Freehold Boro in Freehold Township). But it's no different from a city surrounded by a county, or a goat surrounded by a flock of sheep.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 25, 2014, 10:45:41 AM
Since it is not signed, how about I-1195 for what is now I-595?

I-1195 has to be a spur of I-195.

Quote from: empirestate on March 25, 2014, 12:57:35 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2014, 03:43:19 PM
In a timely article based on how this thread progressed, the Star Ledger of NJ reports today on 10 towns in NJ with odd geographies.  In some cases, various parts of the town are completely seperate from each other.  Not by railroad tracks or highways, but by other towns!

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/njs_weird_geography_10_oddly-shaped_municipalities.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Interesting how much curiosity is given to the "donut-and-hole" phenomenon, especially when it involves a borough inside a township. Seems to me that's a perfectly commonplace type of arrangement, in neighboring Pennsylvania for example, where almost every borough is a hole within a township donut. (It's true, though, that the two types of municipalities are less similar to each other in PA than they are in NJ.)

Of course, in also-neighboring New York, you don't get this effects aren't holes inside of town donuts, but more like cherries on top of town sundaes.

I need to go get breakfast now.

I think the reasons for the existence of some of these anomalies is far less evident now then it may once have been, thus the interest factor. The doughnut and hole phenomenon, for example, often reflected an urbanized place surrounded by rural areas. So much of New Jersey is urbanized now that it may no longer be as clear why the tiny hole is separate from a doughnut not much different from it.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 25, 2014, 04:04:05 PM
So much of New Jersey is urbanized now that it may no longer be as clear why the tiny hole is separate from a doughnut not much different from it.

That's funny, everyone says New Jersey is a giant suburb for New York City and Philadelphia... Regarding the boroughitis thing, I guess that's why you have Hopewell Twp / Boro, Princeton Twp / Boro, etc. 'Somerset' is an incorporated place that sits in Franklin Township, but other than that I'm not sure if my county (Somerset) has many examples of boroughitis.

Quote from: Zeffy on March 25, 2014, 04:28:50 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 25, 2014, 04:04:05 PM
So much of New Jersey is urbanized now that it may no longer be as clear why the tiny hole is separate from a doughnut not much different from it.

That's funny, everyone says New Jersey is a giant suburb for New York City and Philadelphia... Regarding the boroughitis thing, I guess that's why you have Hopewell Twp / Boro, Princeton Twp / Boro, etc. 'Somerset' is an incorporated place that sits in Franklin Township, but other than that I'm not sure if my county (Somerset) has many examples of boroughitis.

"Urbanized" is a relative thing.  Compared to the truly rural areas, Edison is urbanized, even though it's suburban in the context of the NY metro area.

In the 1890s, the rural area of New Jersey was much greater, so the centers of many now-built-out areas were islands of development amid farmland, often around a crossroads, train station, etc.  Their concerns were "urban" concerns (streetlighting? macadamizing?) relative to those surrounding them. 

Quote from: bing101 on March 28, 2014, 12:27:03 PM
At this point I really do believe that California will split into 3 states because of the fact that there were 2 other state politicians were charged of bribery and it took place in my Neighborhood Downtown Sacramento.  Even though I am against splitting California into 3 states Jefferson and South California, and the State of Bay Delta Sacramento. it will happen.

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2014/03/26/report-state-sen-leland-yee-indicted-on-bribery,-corruption-charges/

Tony Mack, former mayor of Trenton NJ was recently indicted on corruption charges, but you don't see anyone in New Jersey saying 'split Trenton to it's own state'. Unfortunately, corruption in politics is all too common nowadays, and not just New Jersey either (though I will admit NJ has a bad track record for corrupt mayors of cities...), Chicago has 'em, Detroit probably has them, heck, NYC probably has them. Yes, it's a grievance for people living in those areas, but, we all have to move on, because cities don't get better with corrupt politicians, they get worse. So, all you can really do is hope that the next people elected don't get involved in corruption schemes.

I'm not sure why California really feels like they are that separate to the point they want to divide the state into smaller ones. That's pointless. That will create more problems that will take even longer to get solved.

http://www.stateintegrity.org/your_state (http://www.stateintegrity.org/your_state)

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/03/19/8423/grading-nation-how-accountable-your-state (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/03/19/8423/grading-nation-how-accountable-your-state)

Check out this PRI and State integrity article California and New Jersey are somehow less corrupt and Texas, New York, Georgia and Alaska somehow on the more corrupt side.

That article uses some really arbitrary measures.  For example, with redistricting, it grades only public involvement and doesn't even look at gerrymandering.

Corruption in government is not a matter of jurisdiction size, party affiliation, or anything other than the fact that politics attracts power-hungry people, and power-hungry people are susceptible to getting caught up in these schemes.

In my opinion, if the Yee story is getting a lot of play, it's because a) it's California, and people have always liked to pile on California, and b) it balances out what many saw as out-of-proportion Republican-bashing with Gov. Christie's bridge scandal. I'm not saying it isn't important, and that what they're accused of isn't serious, but unfortunately it's just another example of politicians trying to serve themselves first and their constituents second.

As far as splitting the state, my opinion is this particular proposal is not well thought out. I don't think the issues that California faces will be solved by splitting the state up - they'll just become more regionalized.

Central California as proposed (San Joaquin Valley and southern Sierra Nevada) would be the second-poorest state in the union, just barely ahead of Mississippi, anchored by the fifth-poorest large city in the country (Fresno). The vast majority of its population lives in the most polluted cities in the nation. The unemployment rate is above 13%.

The above paragraph is true whether that region is its own state or not. Like many other regions in this country, it struggles with a sluggish economy. Other states who battle poverty, debt, declining education systems, etc. are smaller, physically and population-wise, than these proposed states - so they should be "more governable," right? Shouldn't the government of, say, Mississippi (and I'm not bashing them, I'm just using them as an example since they have the lowest per capita income of any state), since they're not controlled by the interests of "far-off" big cities or distant regions with varying political bents, be able to solve the ills that plague them?

And shouldn't everyone be wary of a proposal that says "hey, let's split our state up and let each state take care of their own problems" when the proposal comes from someone whose state would have the highest income, the lowest unemployment rate, and the most capability to succeed in a 21st-century economy?

I would rather a proposal come from someone in Visalia, saying "hey, Sacramento can't solve our problems, but we could, and here's how. What do you think?"

Is California doing everything right? Not by a long shot. Will this create six new states that suddenly do things right, or will it create three states that have the population, money and diversity of economies and resources to rebound from global economic malaises more quickly and three states that have always struggled and who quite possibly will always struggle?

Quote from: DTComposer on March 28, 2014, 05:46:48 PM
Corruption in government is not a matter of jurisdiction size, party affiliation, or anything other than the fact that politics attracts power-hungry people, and power-hungry people are susceptible to getting caught up in these schemes.

This isn't true.  First, of course, we had a vote on whether perjurers should be president.  One party voted no, one yes.  Really that simple.  However, equally importantly, the smaller and more local a government, the more a voter can be informed.  I know my delegate, personally.  Because he only represents 20000 of us.  A Californian in the same position represents nearly a million.   This leads to corruption. 

QuoteAs far as splitting the state, my opinion is this particular proposal is not well thought out. I don't think the issues that California faces will be solved by splitting the state up - they'll just become more regionalized.

Not exactly.  If you believe in limited government and the rights of man, then it really doesn't matter how big a jurisdiction is or isn't.  A government of limits can only do certain things.  However if you belive that government knows best and has the inherent power to control every aspect of everyone's life, then you end up at a different place.  Most of these ideas are mostly born of the frustration of people (IMHO, the productive people who do the real work producting the real products needed to sustain a society)  with people (IMHO, people who do not really contribute to society) who want to decide for them issues that really are none of their business and about which they lack the frame of reference to have an informed opinion upon.

It's somewhere between funny and sad that there is still a belief in this country that joining one of the two main political fraternities puts you on one side or another of morality or ethics. 

If there is one thing that is simple — and it is probably the only thing that is this simple — is that anyone running for a federal office not only has a practical requirement to continually raise as much money as they can, but also that this requirement must be met before they can meet any other requirements — whether of their constituents or otherwise.

In other words, regardless of party affiliation, the person that "represents" you only represents you after the people that matter has been taken care of. But keep expending energy on partisan issues, because those kinds of distractions keep these jerks employed.

Quote from: SP Cook on March 29, 2014, 09:38:40 AM

Quote from: DTComposer on March 28, 2014, 05:46:48 PM
Corruption in government is not a matter of jurisdiction size, party affiliation, or anything other than the fact that politics attracts power-hungry people, and power-hungry people are susceptible to getting caught up in these schemes.

This isn't true.  First, of course, we had a vote on whether perjurers should be president.  One party voted no, one yes.  Really that simple.  However, equally importantly, the smaller and more local a government, the more a voter can be informed.  I know my delegate, personally.  Because he only represents 20000 of us.  A Californian in the same position represents nearly a million.   This leads to corruption. 

I have no desire to turn this into a partisan discussion - you're welcome to your opinion, and here's mine:

The history of politics is littered with people across the political spectrum who abused the system, and people on the other side of that spectrum getting up in arms about it. FDR packed the Supreme Court to push the New Deal agenda, Nixon authorized the Watergate break-in, Clinton lied under oath about extra-marital hanky-panky, Bush went to war under false pretenses, etc. Depending on where your loyalties lie, you may argue one side or the other is more or less important or more or less true or whatever. But they all happened.

Great things have also come from both sides of the aisle. Again, depending on your perspective, you may choose to magnify or downplay certain achievements from certain people.

Meanwhile, small-town corruption is just as likely as state-level or national-level. Among the biggest scandals we have had near where I am were in towns of under 40,000 people, and they ran deep and resulted in prison time.

You guys have done a great job keeping this civil, but on the off chance that things get ugly later (which is why we discourage political discussion on the forum), can we get back on the topic of splitting states, please?

Yes, sorry, back on topic. I don't agree with the Six States plan, but if I were to draw the boundaries, ignoring county lines, here's what I would do:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F12oclockmusic.com%2FBoundaries.jpg&hash=c60e6aee766e4d026e896c39a333bd0521bf0728)

With the exception of Sacramento, I placed the capitals at cities that were significant population centers, but not the dominant city of each region.

Dang Solano County ends up being the Crimea of California if its split into 6 parts.

Why the name "Cahuenga"?

The Cahuenga Pass is where US-101 travels from the San Fernando Valley into Hollywood (the Hollywood Bowl is located in the pass). It was also the site of two "Battles of Cahuenga" in the 1800s, the second of which allowed Pio Pico to become the final Governor of California under Mexican rule.

It is also the site of the Campo de Cahuenga, where the Treaty of Cahuenga was signed that ended local hostilities during the Mexican-American War.

So there's some local history behind the name....got it.

Quote from: DTComposer on March 29, 2014, 04:10:03 PM
Yes, sorry, back on topic. I don't agree with the Six States plan, but if I were to draw the boundaries, ignoring county lines, here's what I would do:


With the exception of Sacramento, I placed the capitals at cities that were significant population centers, but not the dominant city of each region.

It's fine to pick cities other than the largest for capitals, as that's what most states do.  But the capitals should be relatively near to the center.

For Cahuenga, which appears to stretch from Lompoc to San Diego, Santa Barbara is too far north.  The capital should be somewhere in OC.

For Mojave, I have similar issues with Indo being too far south.   How about the town of Mojave?

Quote from: mrsman on April 01, 2014, 09:52:22 PM
The capitals should be relatively near to the center.
For Cahuenga, which appears to stretch from Lompoc to San Diego, Santa Barbara is too far north.  The capital should be somewhere in OC.
For Mojave, I have similar issues with Indo being too far south.   How about the town of Mojave?

Cahuenga: Riverside?
Mojave: Barstow?

Quote from: mrsman on April 01, 2014, 09:52:22 PM

Quote from: DTComposer on March 29, 2014, 04:10:03 PM
Yes, sorry, back on topic. I don't agree with the Six States plan, but if I were to draw the boundaries, ignoring county lines, here's what I would do:


With the exception of Sacramento, I placed the capitals at cities that were significant population centers, but not the dominant city of each region.

It's fine to pick cities other than the largest for capitals, as that's what most states do.  But the capitals should be relatively near to the center.

For Cahuenga, which appears to stretch from Lompoc to San Diego, Santa Barbara is too far north.  The capital should be somewhere in OC.

I gave some thought to the concept of centrally located capitals. But it would seem as many states fail that test as pass it; plus, size-wise Cahuenga would be comparable to the New England states, so even end-to-end distance is not that significant. Plus, Santa Barbara has the potential to host some beautiful state buildings in line with their architectural style (see their County Courthouse).

Finally, I did not want the capital to be anywhere in the LA/OC urban area, again to get it away from the influence of that region.

All that said, and homerism aside, I could see the capital in Long Beach, which has the infrastructure to handle a slew of new office buildings, and I could see a stunning capital building on the ocean.

Riverside could be another option, as could Irvine (although that's a little office-parky for my taste).

Quote
For Mojave, I have similar issues with Indo being too far south.   How about the town of Mojave?

The town of Mojave is even less centrally located than Indio is...it would be right along the western border, just north of Lancaster.

It should be noted that, while geographically, Mojave would be a larger state, over 90% of the population lives in the arc that is the border with Cahuenga. As far as population distribution goes, Indio's pretty well centered.

For Jefferson, Eureka would be pretty isolated.  299 and 101 are both pretty slow roads and the largest trucks are not allowed on parts of them.  Eureka has expensive real estate due to its natural beauty.  I'd go with either Redding or the town of Mt. Shasta as capital.

Quote from: DTComposer on April 01, 2014, 10:28:01 PM
The town of Mojave is even less centrally located than Indio is...it would be right along the western border, just north of Lancaster.

Notably, Mojave is not even currently incorporated as a city or town, so if it were to become a state capital, it would probably have to be elevated to that type of status (depending of course on how the new state's constitution would be written). I'm not sure if any of the existing state capitals are unincorporated. I know there are unincorporated county seats out there ...

Quote from: andy3175 on April 07, 2014, 12:48:06 AMNotably, Mojave is not even currently incorporated as a city or town, so if it were to become a state capital, it would probably have to be elevated to that type of status (depending of course on how the new state's constitution would be written). I'm not sure if any of the existing state capitals are unincorporated. I know there are unincorporated county seats out there ...

Kansas state law includes a provision for automatic incorporation of county seats even if they do not meet the minimum population threshold (300 people for a third-class city).  Other states may have similar get-out clauses, though I am not sure if California is one of them.  (The usual rule of thumb is that when a political jurisdiction splits, or is created out of another, it inherits the statute law of the parent jurisdiction.  This means that if California were split, the individual fragments would inherit the California codes.)  The CDP of Mojave, California also has a population of more than 4,000, which should be comfortably above any reasonable incorporation minima.

Another potential fly in the ointment:  state capitals that are not also county seats (Lansing, Michigan, is apparently the only current example).

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 07, 2014, 02:11:13 PM
Another potential fly in the ointment:  state capitals that are not also county seats (Lansing, Michigan, is apparently the only current example).

Richmond, Virginia is not a county seat, in large part because Richmond is not part of any county.  Like all other Virginia municipalities incorporated as cities, it is independent of the two adjoining counties, Chesterfield and Henrico (though for some years after it became an independent city in the 1870's, Richmond remained the county seat of Henrico County even though it was not part of the county - the same arrangement exists in several (other) Virginia counties and cities to this day).

Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 07, 2014, 10:11:00 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 07, 2014, 02:11:13 PM
Another potential fly in the ointment:  state capitals that are not also county seats (Lansing, Michigan, is apparently the only current example).

Richmond, Virginia is not a county seat, in large part because Richmond is not part of any county.  Like all other Virginia municipalities incorporated as cities, it is independent of the two adjoining counties, Chesterfield and Henrico (though for some years after it became an independent city in the 1870's, Richmond remained the county seat of Henrico County even though it was not part of the county - the same arrangement exists in several (other) Virginia counties and cities to this day).

And don't forget Juneau, Hartford, Providence and Baton Rouge. :-D

While looking at some colonial history today (long story... it started with some curiosity about Long Island geography, brought about by looking at NYC freeway density), I discovered that Massachusetts actually merged with Plymouth as two separate colonies in the late 1600s. The colony of Plymouth is basically Barnstable, Bristol, and Plymouth Counties today, minus the later acquisitions of Hingham and Hull. Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard were actually two separate colonies, also amalgamated into the whole Commonwealth.
So I thought, what if Plymouth remained a separate state? Presumably it would absorb the two island colonies, and would not have taken over Hingham and Hull. The total land area would be larger than Delaware and twice as large as Rhode Island. In theory, PL and RI could have merged (Rhode Island and Plymouth and Providence Plantations?), but would still not catch up to CT.

Consequence #1: I don't think Plymouth would have remained its own capital. I'm going to go with New Bedford for this.

Consequence #2: As a separate state, the 1926 US Highway numbering would probably have given it US 3 instead of MA/PL 3, and the 1956 Interstate numbering would have sent a 2di or two down this way. I-195 would have been I-84. This may or may not have influenced CT and RI to agree to complete the freeway as originally planned. If not, the eastern I-84 could have become I-82. Also, I-93 would have been multiplexed with I-95 through Boston (per original plan) and then down MA 3, quite possibly extending along the US 6 freeway for as long as it's four lanes. There may have been a freeway connection from I-86 to I-93, instead of the two surface streets on either side of the canal. The crossings would have been paid more attention, perhaps with a new bridge or at least with a twinning of the existing one(s).


Consequence #3: More 3di's serving the state. New Bedford's MA 140 would be I-186. Fall River's MA 24 would be I-286.

Quote from: empirestate on April 08, 2014, 12:26:05 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 07, 2014, 10:11:00 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on April 07, 2014, 02:11:13 PM
Another potential fly in the ointment:  state capitals that are not also county seats (Lansing, Michigan, is apparently the only current example).

Richmond, Virginia is not a county seat, in large part because Richmond is not part of any county.  Like all other Virginia municipalities incorporated as cities, it is independent of the two adjoining counties, Chesterfield and Henrico (though for some years after it became an independent city in the 1870's, Richmond remained the county seat of Henrico County even though it was not part of the county - the same arrangement exists in several (other) Virginia counties and cities to this day).

And don't forget Juneau, Hartford, Providence and Baton Rouge. :-D

Add in Carson City, another independent city/state capital.

But Juneau is a combined city-borough, with the city the seat of the borough.

In the vein of "What if they had divided the states this way instead of what way," I am pondering West Florida (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12570.0).

Quote from: oscar on June 05, 2014, 07:02:47 PM

Quote from: empirestate on April 08, 2014, 12:26:05 AM
And don't forget Juneau, Hartford, Providence and Baton Rouge. :-D

Add in Carson City, another independent city/state capital.

But Juneau is a combined city-borough, with the city the seat of the borough.

Of the borough, yes, not of a county, just as Baton Rouge is the seat of its parish, not of a county. Hartford and Providence are in counties but aren't their seats, which those states no longer have.

But yes, Carson City as well–in short, there are lots of capitals that aren't also county seats! :-)

For what it's worth, here's a map showing the proposed Six California split...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fsix-calif-map.png&hash=20411851835ae19087bc8684c41af6dc1297c896)

I think six states is a bit extreme but I can see California being divided into 3 states...

* California - Combine proposed North and Central California with Silicon Valley minus Kern County.
* South California - Combine proposed West and South California plus Kern County.
* Jefferson - Remains as proposed in the above map although it's possible that some of the southern counties may become part of California if they wish.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmarkyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fthree-calif-map.png&hash=74edf0311e0d675580e387074329b812f1e1533c)

I still want a state called Alta California, to go along with Mexico's Baja California.

Quote from: Alps on June 05, 2014, 06:46:01 PM
While looking at some colonial history today (long story... it started with some curiosity about Long Island geography, brought about by looking at NYC freeway density), I discovered that Massachusetts actually merged with Plymouth as two separate colonies in the late 1600s.

Massachusetts Bay, to be exact.  The "Bay" was only dropped with statehood, but is particularly used in reference to the pre-merger colony.

QuoteThe colony of Plymouth is basically Barnstable, Bristol, and Plymouth Counties today, minus the later acquisitions of Hingham and Hull. Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard were actually two separate colonies, also amalgamated into the whole Commonwealth.

Nantucket and the Vineyard were actually Dukes County, New York (the Duke presumably being the Duke of York who acquired them). 

They were added separately into the new Province of Massachusetts Bay created from Massachusetts Bay Colony and Plymouth Colony in 1692 after the dissolution of the Dominion of New England, a resented and short-lived unified New England government.

Far more unnecessary but interesting detail can be found in the countless local histories of this region now online. 

It is a cool artifact that one can see the 17th century dividing line between defunct colonies in modern county lines, just as is the case in New Jersey (where East and West Jersey were combined).

QuoteSo I thought, what if Plymouth remained a separate state? Presumably it would absorb the two island colonies, and would not have taken over Hingham and Hull. The total land area would be larger than Delaware and twice as large as Rhode Island. In theory, PL and RI could have merged (Rhode Island and Plymouth and Providence Plantations?), but would still not catch up to CT.

Consequence #1: I don't think Plymouth would have remained its own capital. I'm going to go with New Bedford for this.

Consequence #2: As a separate state, the 1926 US Highway numbering would probably have given it US 3 instead of MA/PL 3, and the 1956 Interstate numbering would have sent a 2di or two down this way. I-195 would have been I-84. This may or may not have influenced CT and RI to agree to complete the freeway as originally planned. If not, the eastern I-84 could have become I-82. Also, I-93 would have been multiplexed with I-95 through Boston (per original plan) and then down MA 3, quite possibly extending along the US 6 freeway for as long as it's four lanes. There may have been a freeway connection from I-86 to I-93, instead of the two surface streets on either side of the canal. The crossings would have been paid more attention, perhaps with a new bridge or at least with a twinning of the existing one(s).


Consequence #3: More 3di's serving the state. New Bedford's MA 140 would be I-186. Fall River's MA 24 would be I-286.

This makes me wonder what the economy of Plymouth would be like. Tourist money from the Cape on one hand, but fallen whaling/textile cities on the other.  I have a feeling casinos would have arrived in that region much sooner.

If I was to split up Massachusetts, Worcester County and west would become a new state with Springfield as a capital. Maybe make the Cape and Islands their own state.

(sorry for the bump...)

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 07, 2021, 07:16:10 PM
(sorry for the bump...)

Well, if you're going to do it, don't do it and then immediately apologize. Just own it!  :biggrin:

---

As for my own state, I would divide in two along the 42nd parallel, or if there was a pressing need to use county lines, then I'd use the northern boundaries of Sullivan, Ulster, and Dutchess counties.

This reminds me of the Marf's region split up.

Western North Carolina feels so different. Maybe that could get split up

Also, North and South Jersey feel the same way... Those could break up into two states.

Quote from: webny99 on May 07, 2021, 07:46:40 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 07, 2021, 07:16:10 PM
(sorry for the bump...)

Well, if you're going to do it, don't do it and then immediately apologize. Just own it!  :biggrin:

:clap:

Let's combine some while were at it.  Do we need two Dakotas?
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population

Quote from: texaskdog on May 07, 2021, 08:53:23 PM
Let's combine some while were at it.  Do we need two Dakotas?
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population (https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population)

There was a cartoon episode that mentioned the subject matter. Don't remember which cartoon it was, though.

Quote from: texaskdog on May 07, 2021, 08:53:23 PM
Let's combine some while were at it.  Do we need two Dakotas?
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24254.msg2386933#msg2386933

Quote from: texaskdog on May 07, 2021, 08:53:23 PM
Let's combine some while were at it.  Do we need two Dakotas?
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population

Too bad the link to the larger version of the map is broken.  I would be nice to be able to read which cities are in which new states.

There were two Dakotas only so Republicans would be appointing 4 senators instead of 2, and 6 electoral college votes instead of 3.

Democrats should not shy away from getting DC represented the same as a state and admitting Puerto Rico.  Politics is a rough game and if you play like gentlemen you will lose.

While we are at it, To make borders not lines, Virginia should own northern N.C., owning WV, Maryland, Delaware, D.C., and southern PA. Erie should exist with all of western and central Pennsylvania besides Pittsburgh.

Probably been mentioned but worth mentioning again if so:

Chicagoland from the rest of Illinois. Maybe split Central/Southern Illinois into the surrounding states.

If my Virginia will never exist, Delmarva needs to happen!

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 07, 2021, 11:18:34 PM
While we are at it, To make borders not lines, Virginia should own northern N.C., owning WV, Maryland, Delaware, D.C., and southern PA. Erie should exist with all of western and central Pennsylvania besides Pittsburgh.

West Virginia is specifically a thing because they thought Virginia sucked and wanted out.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/United_States_1849-1850.png)

I know that, but if I can make borders I'd have Virginia be reunited so Virginia could be number 1.

Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2021, 11:14:40 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on May 07, 2021, 08:53:23 PM
Let's combine some while were at it.  Do we need two Dakotas?
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population

Too bad the link to the larger version of the map is broken.  I would be nice to be able to read which cities are in which new states.

There were two Dakotas only so Republicans would be appointing 4 senators instead of 2, and 6 electoral college votes instead of 3.

Democrats should not shy away from getting DC represented the same as a state and admitting Puerto Rico.  Politics is a rough game and if you play like gentlemen you will lose.

With the packing the court talk I'm sure a lot more blue states will be created.

I always laugh when a party complains about gerrymandering when they both do it.  All boundries should be drawn up by an independent group. 

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 07:36:19 AM
so Virginia could be number 1.

Number 1 in what?

Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2021, 11:14:40 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on May 07, 2021, 08:53:23 PM
Let's combine some while were at it.  Do we need two Dakotas?
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population

Too bad the link to the larger version of the map is broken.  I would be nice to be able to read which cities are in which new states.

There were two Dakotas only so Republicans would be appointing 4 senators instead of 2, and 6 electoral college votes instead of 3.

Democrats should not shy away from getting DC represented the same as a state and admitting Puerto Rico.  Politics is a rough game and if you play like gentlemen you will lose.

At the time the legislation was passed that enabled the Dakotas (and a few others) to become states, the Senate was Republican but the House and Presidency were Democratic. The Dakota Territory split into two over a dispute over the location of the capital--nothing to do with partisan politics.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 09, 2021, 04:09:20 PM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 07, 2021, 11:18:34 PM
While we are at it, To make borders not lines, Virginia should own northern N.C., owning WV, Maryland, Delaware, D.C., and southern PA. Erie should exist with all of western and central Pennsylvania besides Pittsburgh.

West Virginia is specifically a thing because they thought Virginia sucked and wanted out.

To be more precise, West Virginia is a thing because the northwestern counties of Virginia were pro-union and anti-slavery (or at least not overly pro-slavery) so they seceded from the Confederacy and rejoined the Union as a separate state.

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 10, 2021, 08:04:09 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2021, 11:14:40 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on May 07, 2021, 08:53:23 PM
Let's combine some while were at it.  Do we need two Dakotas?
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population

Too bad the link to the larger version of the map is broken.  I would be nice to be able to read which cities are in which new states.

There were two Dakotas only so Republicans would be appointing 4 senators instead of 2, and 6 electoral college votes instead of 3.

Democrats should not shy away from getting DC represented the same as a state and admitting Puerto Rico.  Politics is a rough game and if you play like gentlemen you will lose.

At the time the legislation was passed that enabled the Dakotas (and a few others) to become states, the Senate was Republican but the House and Presidency were Democratic. The Dakota Territory split into two over a dispute over the location of the capital--nothing to do with partisan politics.

Ironically since the SD capital is not even on the Interstate system.  Glad it was wanted by someone.

A growing population and political concerns (admitting two states meant having four new senators for the Republican Party) caused Dakota Territory to be divided in half and President Benjamin Harrison signed proclamations formally admitting South Dakota and North Dakota to the union on November 2, 1889.[72][73] Harrison had the papers shuffled to obscure which one was signed first and the order went unrecorded.[73][74]

D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

Quote from: texaskdog on May 10, 2021, 08:13:12 AM
A growing population and political concerns (admitting two states meant having four new senators for the Republican Party) caused Dakota Territory to be divided in half and President Benjamin Harrison signed proclamations formally admitting South Dakota and North Dakota to the union on November 2, 1889.[72][73] Harrison had the papers shuffled to obscure which one was signed first and the order went unrecorded.[73][74]

The enabling act that split the Dakota territory into two was passed while there was a Democratic House and President. The residents wanted it, and Congress let the people decide things for themselves rather than make a purely political decision.

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

Mexico's federal district was in a similar situation but became a state in all but name just a few years ago.

Quote from: 1 on May 10, 2021, 08:24:23 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

Mexico's federal district was in a similar situation but became a state just a few years ago.

You don't see the GOP making West Virginia into 400000 states? Or do you seeing them making NOVA apart of MD? Do you see them trying to make New York City a federal district with no electoral votes? Do you see California and the west coast being sold to Mexico and Canada? Do you see Hawaii being given independence? Do you see them trying to expell all democratic voters? No, you don't.

Quote from: 1 on May 10, 2021, 08:24:23 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

Mexico's federal district was in a similar situation but became a state in all but name just a few years ago.

Does Mexico allocate legislators based on states? If not, then it really isn't a comparable action.

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 07:36:19 AM
I know that, but if I can make borders I'd have Virginia be reunited so Virginia could be number 1.

Take Ohio while you're at it so you can have 6/10 of the I-x7 interstates in Virginia  :) Well actually 8/10 since WV has I-79 too and I-73 is getting a VA extension.

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 10, 2021, 08:31:21 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:34:06 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 10, 2021, 08:31:21 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Alaska and Hawaii are internationally strategic so there's no way the US would ever give them up. The GOP should agree to the compromise because it adds 2 Dem senators instead of 4.

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 10, 2021, 08:31:21 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

Only problem is the population of DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland, and Maryland's population and power base is Baltimore and they don't want that to change.

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:34:06 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 10, 2021, 08:31:21 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Alaska never belonged to Canada.  Before it became a U.S. territory, it belonged to Russia. 

This is a democracy.  Maybe we should consider what the people there want.  I don't think you'd find more than a small minority of people in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico that want to be independent of the U.S.

Quote from: kkt on May 10, 2021, 01:57:19 PM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:34:06 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 10, 2021, 08:31:21 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Alaska never belonged to Canada.  Before it became a U.S. territory, it belonged to Russia. 

This is a democracy.  Maybe we should consider what the people there want.  I don't think you'd find more than a small minority of people in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico that want to be independent of the U.S.

Puerto Rico probably has the highest percentage, but still not that high.

Quote from: kkt on May 10, 2021, 01:57:19 PM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:34:06 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 10, 2021, 08:31:21 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Alaska never belonged to Canada.  Before it became a U.S. territory, it belonged to Russia. 

This is a democracy.  Maybe we should consider what the people there want.  I don't think you'd find more than a small minority of people in Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico that want to be independent of the U.S.

I never said that. I said if I could change anything, with only borders and formalities in mind I'd do it. I don't think It should ever happen.

Quote from: kkt on May 10, 2021, 01:57:19 PM

This is a democracy.

No, it isn't. It's a representative republic.

Gratuitous political posts removed.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 10, 2021, 04:16:57 PM
Gratuitous political posts removed.

Thank you. Unfortunatly, this topic does have a high potential to get political.

I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

If DC voted the other way, would you still think that DC should be returned to Maryland?

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC.

Power struggle? I guess that's one way to put it...

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

It doesn't fly with me that citizens within the United States should have to move in order to enjoy their constitutional rights.  That's like telling African Americans in the 1960s, hey, if you want to be able to eat in the same restaurants white people eat at, move out of the southern states.

I think you misread that post, kkt.  He's saying the District of Columbia should go back to Maryland, as in return to being part of that state; not the people get up and move.

Okay, but returning the District to Maryland isn't practical.  The Federal government can't force Maryland to change its boundaries - Virginia wanted its part of the original district back.

Maryland doesn't want them, and they don't want to be part of Maryland, since they'll have more influence on their own, and more control over their local area, than they would as a part of Maryland. So that's a solution that wouldn't make anyone actually involved in it happy.

And forcing new territory onto Maryland that they don't want violates Maryland's state rights. Or do we not care about that anymore?

I see no reason why what is currently DC couldn't be split into two portions, one which becomes a state and one which remains the federal district. It's probably more legitimate than when WV split off from VA.

DC has more people than Wyoming. If DC is merged into Maryland, Wyoming can be merged into Colorado.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2021, 03:42:00 PM
I see no reason why what is currently DC couldn't be split into two portions, one which becomes a state and one which remains the federal district. It's probably more legitimate than when WV split off from VA.

As the 23rd Amendment is written, the remaining federal district still gets 3 electoral votes. You can't make it completely empty, as homeless people living within the boundaries count as inside.

Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2021, 03:45:27 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2021, 03:42:00 PM
I see no reason why what is currently DC couldn't be split into two portions, one which becomes a state and one which remains the federal district. It's probably more legitimate than when WV split off from VA.

As the 23rd Amendment is written, the remaining federal district still gets 3 electoral votes. You can't make it completely empty, as homeless people living within the boundaries count as inside.

Wonder how the court would interpret that. If DC became a state and the federal district had either none or very few people, then would there be 3 electoral votes controlled by very few people? The democrats would love that as the DC homeless population skews Democrat and they would be getting 6 electoral votes out of DC.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2021, 03:47:24 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2021, 03:45:27 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2021, 03:42:00 PM
I see no reason why what is currently DC couldn't be split into two portions, one which becomes a state and one which remains the federal district. It's probably more legitimate than when WV split off from VA.

As the 23rd Amendment is written, the remaining federal district still gets 3 electoral votes. You can't make it completely empty, as homeless people living within the boundaries count as inside.

Wonder how the court would interpret that. If DC became a state and the federal district had either none or very few people, then would there be 3 electoral votes controlled by very few people? The democrats would love that as the DC homeless population skews Democrat and they would be getting 6 electoral votes out of DC.

The Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." In all 50 states, the state appoints electors based on an election by the citizens. 48 states are winner-take-all, while Maine and Nebraska appoint two electors based on the statewide vote, while the other electors are allocated by Congressional district.

But there is nothing saying that the Legislature has to appoint them according to the results of a statewide election. (Indeed, in the country's early days, electors were chosen by some of the state legislatures.) The 23rd Amendment says "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation," which implies that the Congress takes the role of the Legislature in this instance.

So Congress could pass a law saying that DC's 3 electoral votes always follow the national popular vote. Or they could say that they always vote for George Washington, or Alan Merritt, or one each to the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian candidates, or someone else if they want those three votes to effectively go away until they can get around to repealing the 23rd Amendment.

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 10, 2021, 08:28:24 AM

Quote from: 1 on May 10, 2021, 08:24:23 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

Mexico's federal district was in a similar situation but became a state in all but name just a few years ago.

Does Mexico allocate legislators based on states? If not, then it really isn't a comparable action.

Mexico has three Senators (upper house) from each federal entity (31 states + Mexico City).  Of the three per federal entity, two are elected, and one is assigned from the runner-up party within that entity.  In addition, there are 32 Senators who represent the country as a whole, whose political makeup is distributed based on the vote breakdown.

Mexico has 500 Deputies (lower house).  300 of those are elected by electoral district.  The other 200 are assigned based on the vote breakdown, based on five larger-than-state electoral regions, each of which has 40 seats.

That seems kind of complicated, but I really like the idea of having a third senator from the non-majority party for each state. It would be nice having a way to guarantee that, e.g. Republicans in California and Democrats in Oklahoma have a say.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2021, 04:53:16 PM
That seems kind of complicated, but I really like the idea of having a third senator from the non-majority party for each state. It would be nice having a way to guarantee that, e.g. Republicans in California and Democrats in Oklahoma have a say.

You mean other than Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Schwarzenegger's election was borne out of a unique set of circumstances–the California energy crisis and budget crisis, as well as other decisions, making the incumbent Democratic governor, Gray Davis, historically unpopular, leading to a recall election that had 135 candidates, of whom Schwarzenegger had the most name recognition. Schwarzenegger would only go on to win with 48.6% of the vote.

I'd say if I were a California Republican, I would consider the possibility of someone like Schwarzenegger being elected far from the guarantee that the Mexican system offers.

Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2021, 03:10:53 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

It doesn't fly with me that citizens within the United States should have to move in order to enjoy their constitutional rights.  That's like telling African Americans in the 1960s, hey, if you want to be able to eat in the same restaurants white people eat at, move out of the southern states.

It's not that people have to move in order to enjoy rights, but rather, what certain people define as a right, yes you might have to move for. For example, you might believe that housing is a right. In that case you may have to move to a place where you can afford housing. Or if you believe a job is a right, then you might have to move where there are jobs available.

My solution to the DC issue is to exempt them from having to pay tax. They complain "Taxation Without Representation", we exempt them from tax, and thus, their complaint about representation becomes invalid.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2021, 04:53:16 PM
That seems kind of complicated, but I really like the idea of having a third senator from the non-majority party for each state. It would be nice having a way to guarantee that, e.g. Republicans in California and Democrats in Oklahoma have a say.

The problem is that independents and 3rd-party members still get screwed.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 11, 2021, 07:12:58 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2021, 03:10:53 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

It doesn't fly with me that citizens within the United States should have to move in order to enjoy their constitutional rights.  That's like telling African Americans in the 1960s, hey, if you want to be able to eat in the same restaurants white people eat at, move out of the southern states.

It's not that people have to move in order to enjoy rights, but rather, what certain people define as a right, yes you might have to move for. For example, you might believe that housing is a right. In that case you may have to move to a place where you can afford housing. Or if you believe a job is a right, then you might have to move where there are jobs available.

My solution to the DC issue is to exempt them from having to pay tax. They complain "Taxation Without Representation", we exempt them from tax, and thus, their complaint about representation becomes invalid.

They should be able to choose between the two options.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2021, 07:23:31 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 11, 2021, 07:12:58 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2021, 03:10:53 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

It doesn't fly with me that citizens within the United States should have to move in order to enjoy their constitutional rights.  That's like telling African Americans in the 1960s, hey, if you want to be able to eat in the same restaurants white people eat at, move out of the southern states.

It's not that people have to move in order to enjoy rights, but rather, what certain people define as a right, yes you might have to move for. For example, you might believe that housing is a right. In that case you may have to move to a place where you can afford housing. Or if you believe a job is a right, then you might have to move where there are jobs available.

My solution to the DC issue is to exempt them from having to pay tax. They complain "Taxation Without Representation", we exempt them from tax, and thus, their complaint about representation becomes invalid.

They should be able to choose between the two options.

Right. By moving to a state they gain representation. By remaining in DC they would lose taxation.

Quote from: texaskdog on May 10, 2021, 07:38:40 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2021, 11:14:40 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on May 07, 2021, 08:53:23 PM
Let's combine some while were at it.  Do we need two Dakotas?
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population

Too bad the link to the larger version of the map is broken.  I would be nice to be able to read which cities are in which new states.

There were two Dakotas only so Republicans would be appointing 4 senators instead of 2, and 6 electoral college votes instead of 3.

Democrats should not shy away from getting DC represented the same as a state and admitting Puerto Rico.  Politics is a rough game and if you play like gentlemen you will lose.

With the packing the court talk I'm sure a lot more blue states will be created.

I always laugh when a party complains about gerrymandering when they both do it.  All boundries should be drawn up by an independent group. 

The problem is, no one is truly independent.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 11, 2021, 07:28:47 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2021, 07:23:31 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 11, 2021, 07:12:58 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2021, 03:10:53 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

It doesn't fly with me that citizens within the United States should have to move in order to enjoy their constitutional rights.  That's like telling African Americans in the 1960s, hey, if you want to be able to eat in the same restaurants white people eat at, move out of the southern states.

It's not that people have to move in order to enjoy rights, but rather, what certain people define as a right, yes you might have to move for. For example, you might believe that housing is a right. In that case you may have to move to a place where you can afford housing. Or if you believe a job is a right, then you might have to move where there are jobs available.

My solution to the DC issue is to exempt them from having to pay tax. They complain "Taxation Without Representation", we exempt them from tax, and thus, their complaint about representation becomes invalid.

They should be able to choose between the two options.

Right. By moving to a state they gain representation. By remaining in DC they would lose taxation.

Quote from: texaskdog on May 10, 2021, 07:38:40 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2021, 11:14:40 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on May 07, 2021, 08:53:23 PM
Let's combine some while were at it.  Do we need two Dakotas?
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population

Too bad the link to the larger version of the map is broken.  I would be nice to be able to read which cities are in which new states.

There were two Dakotas only so Republicans would be appointing 4 senators instead of 2, and 6 electoral college votes instead of 3.

Democrats should not shy away from getting DC represented the same as a state and admitting Puerto Rico.  Politics is a rough game and if you play like gentlemen you will lose.

With the packing the court talk I'm sure a lot more blue states will be created.

I always laugh when a party complains about gerrymandering when they both do it.  All boundries should be drawn up by an independent group. 

The problem is, no one is truly independent.

People shouldn't have to move to get their constitutional rights.

Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2021, 12:41:46 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 08:25:58 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2021, 12:41:46 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

So you don't want Puerto Rico to become a state because of racism. (or politics)

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2021, 04:08:39 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2021, 03:47:24 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2021, 03:45:27 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2021, 03:42:00 PM
I see no reason why what is currently DC couldn't be split into two portions, one which becomes a state and one which remains the federal district. It's probably more legitimate than when WV split off from VA.

As the 23rd Amendment is written, the remaining federal district still gets 3 electoral votes. You can't make it completely empty, as homeless people living within the boundaries count as inside.

Wonder how the court would interpret that. If DC became a state and the federal district had either none or very few people, then would there be 3 electoral votes controlled by very few people? The democrats would love that as the DC homeless population skews Democrat and they would be getting 6 electoral votes out of DC.

The Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." In all 50 states, the state appoints electors based on an election by the citizens. 48 states are winner-take-all, while Maine and Nebraska appoint two electors based on the statewide vote, while the other electors are allocated by Congressional district.

But there is nothing saying that the Legislature has to appoint them according to the results of a statewide election. (Indeed, in the country's early days, electors were chosen by some of the state legislatures.) The 23rd Amendment says "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation," which implies that the Congress takes the role of the Legislature in this instance.

So Congress could pass a law saying that DC's 3 electoral votes always follow the national popular vote. Or they could say that they always vote for George Washington, or Alan Merritt, or one each to the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian candidates, or someone else if they want those three votes to effectively go away until they can get around to repealing the 23rd Amendment.

Yes.  For that matter, if statehood for DC passed, repealing the 23rd amendment should be accomplished pretty quickly.  I can't imagine who'd want to keep it once DC was properly represented.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 08:25:58 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2021, 12:41:46 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

English is co-official in Puerto Rico. And keep in mind, English is not an official language of the United States as it is.

Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2021, 09:13:59 PM

Yes.  For that matter, if statehood for DC passed, repealing the 23rd amendment should be accomplished pretty quickly.  I can't imagine who'd want to keep it once DC was properly represented.

You sure about that? Amendments are "kept" by default, it takes a new amendment (which requires 3/4 the states) to repeal a previous amendment. So it only takes 13 Democrat states to block the repeal.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2021, 08:07:36 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 11, 2021, 07:28:47 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2021, 07:23:31 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 11, 2021, 07:12:58 PM

It's not that people have to move in order to enjoy rights, but rather, what certain people define as a right, yes you might have to move for. For example, you might believe that housing is a right. In that case you may have to move to a place where you can afford housing. Or if you believe a job is a right, then you might have to move where there are jobs available.

My solution to the DC issue is to exempt them from having to pay tax. They complain "Taxation Without Representation", we exempt them from tax, and thus, their complaint about representation becomes invalid.

They should be able to choose between the two options.

Right. By moving to a state they gain representation. By remaining in DC they would lose taxation.

People shouldn't have to move to get their constitutional rights.

They're not losing any rights. Under my suggestion, they would not be taxed, and since they are not taxed, they cannot claim a right to federal representation.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 11, 2021, 09:58:36 PM
They're not losing any rights. Under my suggestion, they would not be taxed, and since they are not taxed, they cannot claim a right to federal representation.

Do you honestly think taxation is the only way in which the federal government impacts a person's life?  As long as the government impacts one's life in any way, shape, or form, no matter how small, one should have a say in how that government is run.  In other words, the right to vote and fair representation.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 11, 2021, 09:58:36 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2021, 09:13:59 PM

Yes.  For that matter, if statehood for DC passed, repealing the 23rd amendment should be accomplished pretty quickly.  I can't imagine who'd want to keep it once DC was properly represented.

You sure about that? Amendments are "kept" by default, it takes a new amendment (which requires 3/4 the states) to repeal a previous amendment. So it only takes 13 Democrat states to block the repeal.

I know, but I trust the Democratic states' sense of fair play.

Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2021, 11:31:49 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 11, 2021, 09:58:36 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2021, 09:13:59 PM

Yes.  For that matter, if statehood for DC passed, repealing the 23rd amendment should be accomplished pretty quickly.  I can't imagine who'd want to keep it once DC was properly represented.

You sure about that? Amendments are "kept" by default, it takes a new amendment (which requires 3/4 the states) to repeal a previous amendment. So it only takes 13 Democrat states to block the repeal.

I know, but I trust the Democratic states' sense of fair play.

That makes 1 of us.

Quote from: vdeane on May 11, 2021, 10:34:51 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 11, 2021, 09:58:36 PM
They're not losing any rights. Under my suggestion, they would not be taxed, and since they are not taxed, they cannot claim a right to federal representation.

Do you honestly think taxation is the only way in which the federal government impacts a person's life?  As long as the government impacts one's life in any way, shape, or form, no matter how small, one should have a say in how that government is run.  In other words, the right to vote and fair representation.

Using that argument, foreigners should be allowed representation in the US federal government due to how US government affects the rest of the world.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 12, 2021, 01:51:13 AM

Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2021, 11:31:49 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 11, 2021, 09:58:36 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 11, 2021, 09:13:59 PM

Yes.  For that matter, if statehood for DC passed, repealing the 23rd amendment should be accomplished pretty quickly.  I can't imagine who'd want to keep it once DC was properly represented.

You sure about that? Amendments are "kept" by default, it takes a new amendment (which requires 3/4 the states) to repeal a previous amendment. So it only takes 13 Democrat states to block the repeal.

I know, but I trust the Democratic states' sense of fair play.

That makes 1 of us.

Quote from: vdeane on May 11, 2021, 10:34:51 PM

Quote from: ran4sh on May 11, 2021, 09:58:36 PM
They're not losing any rights. Under my suggestion, they would not be taxed, and since they are not taxed, they cannot claim a right to federal representation.

Do you honestly think taxation is the only way in which the federal government impacts a person's life?  As long as the government impacts one's life in any way, shape, or form, no matter how small, one should have a say in how that government is run.  In other words, the right to vote and fair representation.

Using that argument, foreigners should be allowed representation in the US federal government due to how US government affects the rest of the world.

Foreigners are not the same as US citizens living in the US.

Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2021, 04:20:30 PM
Mexico has three Senators (upper house) from each federal entity (31 states + Mexico City).  Of the three per federal entity, two are elected, and one is assigned from the runner-up party within that entity.  In addition, there are 32 Senators who represent the country as a whole, whose political makeup is distributed based on the vote breakdown.

Mexico has 500 Deputies (lower house).  300 of those are elected by electoral district.  The other 200 are assigned based on the vote breakdown, based on five larger-than-state electoral regions, each of which has 40 seats.

Quote from: ran4sh on May 11, 2021, 07:12:58 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 11, 2021, 04:53:16 PM
That seems kind of complicated, but I really like the idea of having a third senator from the non-majority party for each state. It would be nice having a way to guarantee that, e.g. Republicans in California and Democrats in Oklahoma have a say.

The problem is that independents and 3rd-party members still get screwed.

But that's a separate issue.  For example, the Senate in Mexico currently has members from seven political parties, plus one Independent.  The Chamber of Deputies currently has members from eight political parties, plus four Independents.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 08:25:58 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2021, 12:41:46 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

What do you mean by "abandon Spanish"?  Do you mean they all have to stop speaking it?  Or just that they have to stop having two official languages?

If the first, then did you know three states are currently more than 25% Spanish-speaking?  Should they lose their statehood just because of what language the people living there happen to speak?  What if one of them were to cross the 50% threshold?

If the second, then did you know three states currently have more than one official language?  Should Hawaii lose its statehood just because Hawaiian is co-official with English?  South Dakota, because Sioux?  For the first 29 years of California's statehood, all government provisions were required to be published in both Spanish and English–effectively making both languages co-official.  Do you think California shouldn't have been admitted until that section was removed?  Delaware, the first state of the Union, has no official language at all;  should it lose its statehood?

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 08:25:58 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2021, 12:41:46 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony for 400 years before being transferred to the US. Who are we to tell people to abandon the language they've been speaking for that long?

I would point out that statements like that are borderline racist, except remove the word borderline.

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 12, 2021, 10:15:07 AM
I would point out that statements like that are borderline racist, except remove the word borderline.

Only inasmuch as language=race.

I believe it's discriminatory but not racist.

What if in the enabling legislation to admit DC as a state, there were words to the effect that it didn't take effect until the 23rd Amendment was repealed by 3/4's of the states?

Or then would 13 Republican states block it so there weren't 2 more senators?

Quote from: GaryV on May 12, 2021, 11:20:26 AM
What if in the enabling legislation to admit DC as a state, there were words to the effect that it didn't take effect until the 23rd Amendment was repealed by 3/4's of the states?

Or then would 13 Republican states block it so there weren't 2 more senators?

The republicans would block it for sure.

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 12, 2021, 10:15:07 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 08:25:58 PM
Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony for 400 years before being transferred to the US. Who are we to tell people to abandon the language they've been speaking for that long?

I would point out that statements like that are borderline racist, except remove the word borderline.

Oh, no borderline about it. If there's one thing you can say about the current discourse, it's that people have largely given up trying to hide or make excuses for this kind of viewpoint, since it has become so widely acceptable. That's...something, I guess!

And of course, let's not forget that Spanish became prevalent in the Americas for extremely racist reasons as well, so it's not as if either language is any more worthy in that respect.

Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2021, 10:31:16 AM
Only inasmuch as language=race.

The two are very intimately tied together, indeed.

Quote from: empirestate on May 12, 2021, 11:49:12 AM

Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2021, 10:31:16 AM
Only inasmuch as language=race.

The two are very intimately tied together, indeed.

Then we should assume HB is perfectly fine with white persons speaking Spanish?

Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2021, 11:59:20 AM

Quote from: empirestate on May 12, 2021, 11:49:12 AM

Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2021, 10:31:16 AM
Only inasmuch as language=race.

The two are very intimately tied together, indeed.

Then we should assume HB is perfectly fine with white persons speaking Spanish?

Race does not correlate with color. Would you say that it's impossible to be racist against a Jewish person?

De este momento, voy a escribir en español en este hilo, solo para enojar a |hbelkins|.   :sombrero:

---

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 12, 2021, 12:03:12 PM
Race does not correlate with color. Would you say that it's impossible to be racist against a Jewish person?

Racism against Jews is a tricky one.  I honestly haven't solidly come down on one side of the debate.  And this is partly because, as I understand it, it's a debate within Judaism:  some Jews consider Judaism a religion, others a race/ethnicity, and others both at the same time.

Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2021, 12:08:27 PM
De este momento, voy a escribir en español en este hilo, solo para enojar a |hbelkins|.   :sombrero:

---

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 12, 2021, 12:03:12 PM
Race does not correlate with color. Would you say that it's impossible to be racist against a Jewish person?

Racism against Jews is a tricky one.  I honestly haven't solidly come down on one side of the debate.  And this is partly because, as I understand it, it's a debate within Judaism:  some Jews consider Judaism a religion, others a race/ethnicity, and others both at the same time.

Fine, use bigoted then.

I just don't know why anyone cares what language people speak.  I at least understand people's concerns about illegal immigration, even if I don't agree with all of them, and their concerns about immigration in general–but how does someone else's language of choice affect you in any way?

Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2021, 12:13:09 PM
I just don't know why anyone cares what language people speak.  I at least understand people's concerns about illegal immigration, even if I don't agree with all of them, and their concerns about immigration in general–but how does someone else's language of choice affect you in any way?

It doesn't affect me. I'm just stating what words I would use, you can use what you want.

I didn't mean you specifically.  I meant in general.

Hawaiian is an official language alongside English in Hawaii.  Should Hawaii never have been admitted to the U.S.?  Or is it a special dislike for Spanish?

Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2021, 12:40:14 PM
Hawaiian is an official language alongside English in Hawaii.  Should Hawaii never have been admitted to the U.S.?  Or is it a special dislike for Spanish?

But which language is predominately used in everyday life?

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 12, 2021, 10:15:07 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 08:25:58 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2021, 12:41:46 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony for 400 years before being transferred to the US. Who are we to tell people to abandon the language they've been speaking for that long?

I would point out that statements like that are borderline racist, except remove the word borderline.
[/quote

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

I needed a good laugh today. Tell us another funny...

Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2021, 10:05:20 AM
What do you mean by "abandon Spanish"?  Do you mean they all have to stop speaking it?  Or just that they have to stop having two official languages?

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2021, 12:46:20 PM
But which language is predominately used in everyday life?

Well, that answered that.

I'm surprised that you are in favor of the government controlling what language people choose to speak.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2021, 12:46:20 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 12, 2021, 12:40:14 PM
Hawaiian is an official language alongside English in Hawaii.  Should Hawaii never have been admitted to the U.S.?  Or is it a special dislike for Spanish?

But which language is predominately used in everyday life?

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 12, 2021, 10:15:07 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 08:25:58 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 11, 2021, 12:41:46 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 11, 2021, 12:35:42 PM
I'm one of those who's against DC statehood, and am in the camp of those who think that if the residents of that city want to be in a state, they should go back to Maryland the same way Arlington did to Virginia.

But I saw it expressed upthread that doing so would set up a power struggle with Baltimore for control of the state.

That's nothing new. Albany vs. NYC. Chicago vs. Springfield. Charlotte vs. Raleigh (and the Triad vs. the Triangle). Memphis vs. Nashville. Richmond vs. Hampton Roads vs. NoVa.

You've said before (not sure if it's from this year or not) that you are open to Puerto Rico being a state, unlike DC. Is this still true?

Only if they abandon Spanish and adopt English as a semi-official language.

Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony for 400 years before being transferred to the US. Who are we to tell people to abandon the language they've been speaking for that long?

I would point out that statements like that are borderline racist, except remove the word borderline.
[/quote

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

I needed a good laugh today. Tell us another funny...

Who cares what language they speak? Also this isn't a joke.

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:34:06 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 10, 2021, 08:31:21 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Well I think Canada should be given to the US excluding Quebec.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 12, 2021, 02:02:29 PM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:34:06 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 10, 2021, 08:31:21 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Well I think Canada should be given to the US excluding Quebec.

Except Canadians' entire identity model is built around "we're not Americans" .

"Given" as in a gift, or as in a respiratory infection?

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 12, 2021, 02:02:29 PM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:34:06 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 10, 2021, 08:31:21 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Well I think Canada should be given to the US excluding Quebec.

Why?

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 12, 2021, 02:29:47 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 12, 2021, 02:02:29 PM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:34:06 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 10, 2021, 08:31:21 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Well I think Canada should be given to the US excluding Quebec.

Except Canadians' entire identity model is built around "we're not Americans" .

It's funny because it's true.

(Cut to all of Canada both nodding and scowling.)

Notice how you never see these people who get up in arms about immigrants speaking other languages learning to speak Cherokee, or Chickasaw, or Hawaiian, or...

Anyone who's that upset about someone else speaking another language is just too lazy to learn to speak another language, and pissed at other people for missing out on things due to their own laziness.

People are (and should be) free to speak whatever language they wish as they go about their private business. I speak fluent hillbilly at home, but more standard English at other times.

But official business should be conducted in one language, that being the predominate language of the nation or overall culture. Puerto Ricans can continue to speak/write Spanish all they want at home, in church, or in correspondence. But official business should be conducted in the primary language of the nation at large.

I would say that PR road signs should be in English instead of Spanish, but there probably aren't a great number of mainland Americans who drive there.

I'm still amazed that Quebec seems to cling to French and hasn't adopted English yet. Or is there a tremendous cultural attachment to the French language?

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2021, 07:18:39 PM
People are (and should be) free to speak whatever language they wish as they go about their private business. I speak fluent hillbilly at home, but more standard English at other times.

But official business should be conducted in one language, that being the predominate language of the nation or overall culture. Puerto Ricans can continue to speak/write Spanish all they want at home, in church, or in correspondence. But official business should be conducted in the primary language of the nation at large.

I would say that PR road signs should be in English instead of Spanish, but there probably aren't a great number of mainland Americans who drive there.

I'm still amazed that Quebec seems to cling to French and hasn't adopted English yet. Or is there a tremendous cultural attachment to the French language?

Is there a problem with a bilingual country?

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2021, 07:18:39 PM
But official business should be conducted in one language, that being the predominate language of the nation or overall culture. Puerto Ricans can continue to speak/write Spanish all they want at home, in church, or in correspondence. But official business should be conducted in the primary language of the nation at large.

Why? Conducting official business in additional languages has the benefit of making the government more transparent to those who may not be as proficient in English as they are other languages (note that even if you are reasonably fluent in a language, you may run into terms that are not easily understood, and the likelihood of this rises in technical, specialized discussions that tend to happen during discussions of government policy). Or do you like the prospect of a crooked politician being able to get away with things because the constituents don't speak the language of the government? What if a non-English speaker wanted to participate in a public meeting about a road project, or perhaps report an urgent issue to the local DOT public information officer?

Two of the recent stimulus checks were accompanied by letters in the mail, one signed by both current president and one by his predecessor, explaining the timeline for the checks and what to do if they didn't arrive. In both cases, the letter was printed in English on the front and Spanish on the back. Would it have served the people better to leave the back blank? If so, why? I can't imagine the IRS had to go on an exhaustive search for someone to translate the letter.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2021, 07:18:39 PM
I would say that PR road signs should be in English instead of Spanish, but there probably aren't a great number of mainland Americans who drive there.

Why not both? Statens vegvesen in Norway has signs that have as many as four languages on them in certain areas, and they seem to work fine. Canada has bilingual signage and that works fine too.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2021, 07:18:39 PM
I'm still amazed that Quebec seems to cling to French and hasn't adopted English yet. Or is there a tremendous cultural attachment to the French language?

Definitely the second one, to the extent that KFC operates under the name PFK in Quebec (the only jurisdiction in which KFC has felt the need to translate the words "Kentucky Fried Chicken" to the local language).

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 12, 2021, 01:32:18 PM
Who cares what language they speak? Also this isn't a joke.

He does realize that, of course. This goes along with what I was saying earlier: there's really no refuting the racist nature of the comment, and to his credit he doesn't attempt to. He said what he said, meant what he meant, and is sticking to it. All that's left, then, is to try to dismiss any criticism by framing the criticism itself as illegitimate. This is what you'll notice more people doing these days, especially as viewpoints of this kind become more popular to hold and express.

I would also guess that most people holding such views have never actually undertaken an honest attempt to become fluent in a language, at least nothing beyond high-school or college-level language classes. It is one thing to learn a smattering of words and how to string together a sentence, but another entirely to learn to read, write, and speak a language to the extent that one could, say, protest the IRS's assessment of how much in taxes you owe.

Quote from: empirestate on May 12, 2021, 10:40:08 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 12, 2021, 01:32:18 PM
Who cares what language they speak? Also this isn't a joke.

He does realize that, of course. This goes along with what I was saying earlier: there's really no refuting the racist nature of the comment, and to his credit he doesn't attempt to. He said what he said, meant what he meant, and is sticking to it. All that's left, then, is to try to dismiss any criticism by framing the criticism itself as illegitimate. This is what you'll notice more people doing these days, especially as viewpoints of this kind become more popular to hold and express.

And race and language are two different things

Quote from: texaskdog on May 12, 2021, 11:11:24 PM

Quote from: empirestate on May 12, 2021, 10:40:08 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 12, 2021, 01:32:18 PM
Who cares what language they speak? Also this isn't a joke.

He does realize that, of course. This goes along with what I was saying earlier: there's really no refuting the racist nature of the comment, and to his credit he doesn't attempt to. He said what he said, meant what he meant, and is sticking to it. All that's left, then, is to try to dismiss any criticism by framing the criticism itself as illegitimate. This is what you'll notice more people doing these days, especially as viewpoints of this kind become more popular to hold and express.

And race and language are two different things

Only insomuch as language proficiency is mutable and race is not. But arguments against language usage can easily be used as a proxy for racism. Most Spanish-speakers in the United States are not white Spaniards. An attack against the Spanish language can be used as a thin veneer over an attack against those of Mexican descent.

Case in point, you generally don't see people react anywhere near as negatively to bilingual English-French materials (which the US sometimes gets for cost-saving reasons, because they can be distributed in Canada as well) as you do to English-Spanish ones.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 12, 2021, 11:15:47 PM

Quote from: texaskdog on May 12, 2021, 11:11:24 PM
And race and language are two different things

Only insomuch as language proficiency is mutable and race is not. But arguments against language usage can easily be used as a proxy for racism. Most Spanish-speakers in the United States are not white Spaniards. An attack against the Spanish language can be used as a thin veneer over an attack against those of Mexican descent.

Case in point, you generally don't see people react anywhere near as negatively to bilingual English-French materials (which the US sometimes gets for cost-saving reasons, because they can be distributed in Canada as well) as you do to English-Spanish ones.

And even more simply than that, language is a shared cultural aspect that binds together groups of people, and with which they identify. It is these groupings of people–people with a shared set of traits–that constitute "races". The shared traits can also be physical and visual differences, but are by no means limited to this.

So indeed, language and race are different things, in the same way that wheels and cars are different things. One is an aspect of the other, and not necessarily an exclusive one: all cars have wheels, but not everything with wheels is a car. Likewise, all people within a race will typically share a language, but not all speakers of that language belong to that race, nor do all differences in language classify people into different races. You get the idea.

(And to Scott's point, just like "language" and "race", one word can be a synecdoche for the other. You can even say "do you have wheels?" to mean "do you have a car?")

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2021, 07:18:39 PM
People are (and should be) free to speak whatever language they wish as they go about their private business. I speak fluent hillbilly at home, but more standard English at other times.

But official business should be conducted in one language, that being the predominate language of the nation or overall culture. Puerto Ricans can continue to speak/write Spanish all they want at home, in church, or in correspondence. But official business should be conducted in the primary language of the nation at large.

What do you mean by "official business"?

Do you mean government correspondence only, or do you mean commercial transactions?  If you just mean government correspondence–well, then, Puerto Rico already has English as one of its two official languages, so all of its government correspondence is already available in English.  Is the only thing you're asking that the Puerto Rican government stop making available its official correspondence in Spanish as well?  You do realize that such wouldn't affect very much at all, right?

Or do you mean that all commercial transactions be done in English only?  I think this is what you really mean, so bear with me if I'm incorrect in that assumption.

How, exactly, do you see that working?  Allow me to give you a few real-life examples, and you tell me your answers:

1.
A block from my house, there used to be a family-owned bakery.  The family who owned it are Mexican-Americans, originally from the Mexican state of Michoacán, and the husband and wife speak very little English–although their children are fluently bilingual.  A few years ago, they closed the bakery and bought a grocery store about a half-mile away.  That grocery store is where I buy my avocados, because they're the freshest around, and I occasionally buy some other things there too.  Over the years, I've gotten to know them a little bit.  Whenever I see them in the store, I speak Spanish with them–not just when chatting but also when going through the checkout line.  Usually, though, it's not one of them who's actually running the register.  But, half the time, I still speak Spanish when paying for my groceries, or asking for assistance while shopping, or whatever.  It's just easier and simpler that way.

Should I not be allowed to do that, to speak Spanish with the employees or owners of the store?  If I ask a question in Spanish, should the employee or owner be required to answer me in English?  When the owner gives his daughter instructions for closing up the register, should he be required to do so in English only?  Should the signs on the doors and windows be required by law to be in English only, when 80% of their customers speak Spanish and many of them don't know English at all?

It seems a bit ridiculous to answer yes to those questions.

2.
My family's best friends live in northern Mexico as Christian missionaries.  They are very white people.  He grew up in Michigan, likes to shoot squirrels, listens to country music, enjoys ice hockey, likes to wear camo and cowboy boots–would probably fit in well in your neck of the woods, HB.  She was homeschooled in a farmhouse here in southeastern Kansas, surrounded by corn and milo, raised by parents originally from Nebraska.  He speaks decent Spanish, she struggles to learn it.  In the town of 45,000 people where they live, I'm not aware of a single person other than them who speaks English as a first language.  Most locals only learned enough English words to get them through English class in school, and couldn't even hold a basic conversation in English.  A few college grad types know enough English to get by, but trust me when I say nobody in town is speaking English in their daily lives.

Our friends had a decision to make:  what language to speak at home.  When they moved down to Mexico, they had one daughter.  They're now currently in Wichita awaiting the passport for their third and will be heading back south of the border once it arrives.  This means two of their daughters will have never lived permanently anywhere but Mexico, and they spend their daily lives surrounded by Spanish speakers.  So our friends decided to speak English at home, even though speaking Spanish at home would help them all become fluent in the local language.  They made that decision because they want their children to be able to communicate in English whenever they come stateside to visit family and friends.  But that's all kind of beside the point, because you said people should be free to speak whatever language they want at home.

However, what about that local shopkeeper or restaurant waiter, wanting to practice and/or show off his or her English language skills, choosing to communicate with our friends in English, speaking English with them instead of Spanish while doing business?  When our friends got into a fender-bender last year, should the police officer have been disallowed from speaking English with them while writing up the report?  When they were seeing their obstetrician during pregnancy, should the doctor or nurse have been disallowed from speaking English with them during the consultation?  When he buys a car part at the local Auto Zone, should the clerk be disallowed from speaking English when figuring out what part he needs?

Again, it seems a bit ridiculous to answer yes to those questions.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2021, 07:18:39 PM
But official business should be conducted in one language, that being the predominate language of the nation or overall culture. Puerto Ricans can continue to speak/write Spanish all they want at home, in church, or in correspondence. But official business should be conducted in the primary language of the nation at large.

There are a multitude of multi-lingual nations in the world. Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, Philippines, and so on. The countries were formed by speakers of different languages who decided that they wanted to be a single country. Should they all be forced to use a single language for official business?

Quote from: Takumi on May 12, 2021, 05:46:15 PM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 12, 2021, 02:29:47 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 12, 2021, 02:02:29 PM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:34:06 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 10, 2021, 08:31:21 AM

Quote from: Angelo71 on May 10, 2021, 08:21:03 AM
D.C. was meant to be a federal district, not a state. If people in D.C. want representation, I think that either Federal Buildings should be D.C., or the new borders of D.C. should be based upon the Anacostia River, Rock Creek and Massachusetts Avenue.

The obvious compromise here is for the GOP to agree to grant statehood for Puerto Rico (which is going to happen at some point anyway) in return for a Dem agreement to turn the populated portions of DC back to Maryland and abandoning statehood.

I personally don't like the fact that US owns a bunch of land off of the contiguous U.S., I think Alaska should be given to Canada, Hawaii independence, Puerto Rico independence, even though that is for an alternate history timeline, not a road forums, and it would simply never happen. I also think the GOP would want more because giving Maryland more Democrat land doesn't really change anything and I don't understand your point.

Well I think Canada should be given to the US excluding Quebec.

Except Canadians' entire identity model is built around "we're not Americans" .

It's funny because it's true.

(Cut to all of Canada both nodding and scowling.)

Actually we will take just Alberta.

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 13, 2021, 09:37:28 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2021, 07:18:39 PM
But official business should be conducted in one language, that being the predominate language of the nation or overall culture. Puerto Ricans can continue to speak/write Spanish all they want at home, in church, or in correspondence. But official business should be conducted in the primary language of the nation at large.

There are a multitude of multi-lingual nations in the world. Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, Philippines, and so on. The countries were formed by speakers of different languages who decided that they wanted to be a single country. Should they all be forced to use a single language for official business?

I don't think he really cares what other countries do, he just doesn't want *this* one to become too multilingual. People viewing use of non-English as some kind of threat or subversion to national unity and identity isn't really new; Theodore Roosevelt's famous "there is room for but one language"  quote probably wasn't the beginning of it either, but more or less codified to some circles that the immigrants' old world languages needed to be left behind in those countries so far as however long it took them to learn English and then never use them again anywhere for any reason. Of course, things like 9/11 and certain political encouraging emboldens idiots to complain and attempt to police others if they happen to hear non-English conversation, especially if it's Spanish, Arabic, or Somali.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 13, 2021, 11:24:20 AM

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 13, 2021, 09:37:28 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2021, 07:18:39 PM
But official business should be conducted in one language, that being the predominate language of the nation or overall culture. Puerto Ricans can continue to speak/write Spanish all they want at home, in church, or in correspondence. But official business should be conducted in the primary language of the nation at large.

There are a multitude of multi-lingual nations in the world. Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, Philippines, and so on. The countries were formed by speakers of different languages who decided that they wanted to be a single country. Should they all be forced to use a single language for official business?

I don't think he really cares what other countries do, he just doesn't want *this* one to become too multilingual. People viewing use of non-English as some kind of threat or subversion to national unity and identity isn't really new; Theodore Roosevelt's famous "there is room for but one language"  quote probably wasn't the beginning of it either, but more or less codified to some circles that the immigrants' old world languages needed to be left behind in those countries so far as however long it took them to learn English and then never use them again anywhere for any reason. Of course, things like 9/11 and certain political encouraging emboldens idiots to complain and attempt to police others if they happen to hear non-English conversation, especially if it's Spanish, Arabic, or Somali.

Our nation is super disunited nowadays and it has nothing to do with language.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2021, 07:18:39 PM
But official business should be conducted in one language, that being the predominate language of the nation or overall culture ... official business should be conducted in the primary language of the nation at large.

But the USA has more than one predominant language.

I made this map a few years ago:

(https://i.imgur.com/oK9V8by.png)

As you can see, there are more than 40 counties in Texas in which more than 40% of the people speak Spanish–including two of the top ten most populous counties in the state, four of the top twenty.  It therefore makes little sense to me that all official business would have to be conducted in English only.

Why should all official notices in Webb County, for example, be required to be posted in English only, when–according to the US Census Bureau–90% of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home?  That just doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm sure all the people who want everything only done in English only have English ancestry too, so they never had anyone in their family that spoke anything but English.  :rolleyes:

Chris

Quote from: jayhawkco on May 13, 2021, 12:23:58 PM
I'm sure all the people who want everything only done in English only have English ancestry too, so they never had anyone in their family that spoke anything but English.  :rolleyes:

When Spanish-majority California was admitted to the union, my ancestors hadn't even arrived on US soil yet.  It strikes me as a bit presumptuous that I might dictate what language the descendants of those Californians should be speaking for what purposes.

Quote from: kphoger on May 13, 2021, 12:27:04 PM

Quote from: jayhawkco on May 13, 2021, 12:23:58 PM
I'm sure all the people who want everything only done in English only have English ancestry too, so they never had anyone in their family that spoke anything but English.  :rolleyes:

When Spanish-majority California was admitted to the union, my ancestors hadn't even arrived on US soil yet.  It strikes me as a bit presumptuous that I might dictate what language the descendants of those Californians should be speaking for what purposes.

Yes. The US is essentially a bilingual country now, and people gotta deal with it.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 12:36:12 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 13, 2021, 12:27:04 PM

Quote from: jayhawkco on May 13, 2021, 12:23:58 PM
I'm sure all the people who want everything only done in English only have English ancestry too, so they never had anyone in their family that spoke anything but English.  :rolleyes:

When Spanish-majority California was admitted to the union, my ancestors hadn't even arrived on US soil yet.  It strikes me as a bit presumptuous that I might dictate what language the descendants of those Californians should be speaking for what purposes.

Yes. The US is essentially a bilingual country now, and people gotta deal with it.

Part of my point is that the US was already a bilingual country in 1850.

And there are plenty of Spanish-speaking folks in New Mexico whose families have lived within current U.S. boundaries for centuries.

Chris

Quote from: kphoger on May 13, 2021, 12:42:18 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 12:36:12 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 13, 2021, 12:27:04 PM

Quote from: jayhawkco on May 13, 2021, 12:23:58 PM
I'm sure all the people who want everything only done in English only have English ancestry too, so they never had anyone in their family that spoke anything but English.  :rolleyes:

When Spanish-majority California was admitted to the union, my ancestors hadn't even arrived on US soil yet.  It strikes me as a bit presumptuous that I might dictate what language the descendants of those Californians should be speaking for what purposes.

Yes. The US is essentially a bilingual country now, and people gotta deal with it.

Part of my point is that the US was already a bilingual country in 1850.

True. Back in the 1800s a lot of immigrants in communities spoke their own native languages, although the Spanish speakers in the southwest were not really immigrants (the US came to them, not the other way around). In fact German was widely spoken in America until the World Wars.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
True. Back in the 1800s a lot of immigrants in communities spoke their own native languages, although the Spanish speakers in the southwest were not really immigrants (the US came to them, not the other way around). In fact German was widely spoken in America until the World Wars.

I visited some cemeteries where my relatives were buried in southern Minnesota and almost all of the gravestones were "written" in German.  They all passed away in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Chris

Quote from: jayhawkco on May 13, 2021, 01:19:08 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
True. Back in the 1800s a lot of immigrants in communities spoke their own native languages, although the Spanish speakers in the southwest were not really immigrants (the US came to them, not the other way around). In fact German was widely spoken in America until the World Wars.

I visited some cemeteries where my relatives were buried in southern Minnesota and almost all of the gravestones were "written" in German.  They all passed away in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Chris

By the time WWI hit they would have been looked at as potential spies.  Many had to quit speaking German so they were not suspected as being a spy or even a deafest.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 13, 2021, 01:32:57 PM

Quote from: jayhawkco on May 13, 2021, 01:19:08 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
True. Back in the 1800s a lot of immigrants in communities spoke their own native languages, although the Spanish speakers in the southwest were not really immigrants (the US came to them, not the other way around). In fact German was widely spoken in America until the World Wars.

I visited some cemeteries where my relatives were buried in southern Minnesota and almost all of the gravestones were "written" in German.  They all passed away in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Chris

By the time WWI hit they would have been looked at as potential spies.  Many had to quit speaking German so they were not suspected as being a spy or even a deafest.

What is a deafest? Something to do with hearing?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 01:49:26 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 13, 2021, 01:32:57 PM

Quote from: jayhawkco on May 13, 2021, 01:19:08 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
True. Back in the 1800s a lot of immigrants in communities spoke their own native languages, although the Spanish speakers in the southwest were not really immigrants (the US came to them, not the other way around). In fact German was widely spoken in America until the World Wars.

I visited some cemeteries where my relatives were buried in southern Minnesota and almost all of the gravestones were "written" in German.  They all passed away in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Chris

By the time WWI hit they would have been looked at as potential spies.  Many had to quit speaking German so they were not suspected as being a spy or even a deafest.

What is a deafest? Something to do with hearing?

I though I typed defeatist.

Must have been some stupid auto non-correction.

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 13, 2021, 01:57:13 PM
Must have been some stupid auto non-correction.

Stupid auto-correct.  You always end up posting some thong you didn't Nintendo.

Quote from: kphoger on May 13, 2021, 02:04:59 PM

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 13, 2021, 01:57:13 PM
Must have been some stupid auto non-correction.

Stupid auto-correct.  You always end up posting some thong you didn't Nintendo.

I hate auto-carrot.

Chris

Yes, multilingual counties are what you get when you go taking pieces of other counties that speak a different language.

If the English settlers that founded the US wanted a monolingual country they should have just stayed in England.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 06:18:59 PM
If the English settlers that founded the US wanted a monolingual country they should have just stayed in England.

Back then, they would have had trouble chatting with the Welsh and Cornish, not to even mention the Scots.  And some of those deep Cockney and Yorkshire accents were pretty much incomprehensible without training.

Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2021, 06:28:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 06:18:59 PM
If the English settlers that founded the US wanted a monolingual country they should have just stayed in England.

Back then, they would have had trouble chatting with the Welsh and Cornish, not to even mention the Scots.  And some of those deep Cockney and Yorkshire accents were pretty much incomprehensible without training.

Well I guess countries have always been multilingual!

Quote from: kkt on May 13, 2021, 06:28:44 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 06:18:59 PM
If the English settlers that founded the US wanted a monolingual country they should have just stayed in England.

Back then, they would have had trouble chatting with the Welsh and Cornish, not to even mention the Scots.  And some of those deep Cockney and Yorkshire accents were pretty much incomprehensible without training.

Heh, last weekend I watched Quadrophenia, the movie based on the Who album set in the south of England in the 1960s. I couldn't understand a damn word of it.

Besides having no official language, it is good to have governments communicating important information in as many languages as it can to prevent misinformation from spreading in immigrant communities.

For example, WA's water messages are translated in 28 languages (https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/DrinkingWater/DrinkingWaterEmergencies/PublicNotification/TranslationsforPublicNotification).

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 06:18:59 PM
If the English settlers that founded the US wanted a monolingual country they should have just stayed in England.

The Pilgrims had actually lived in Holland first, but they were dismayed that their children were losing their English cultural heritage.  So they came to the New World to start an English society far away from the reach of the English king.  In that sense, you could say they really did want a monolingual country, except that staying in England was off the table, and they tried Plan A first before coming here.

The catch, of course, is that they weren't the only ones who settled here.  People from plenty of other cultures have settled in this country, and they continue to do so.  Heck, where I grew up in northwestern Kansas, German surnames are at least as common as English ones, church hymns are occasionally still sung in German, and I'm pretty sure there are still people alive today who remember school being taught in German.  Plus, as has already mentioned, large areas of this country were already Spanish-speaking when they were added to the Union.  Heck, if California hadn't swung to being an English-majority state shortly after admittance, I imagine Spanish probably would have remained co-official for longer than it did.

And just to be perfectly clear, even if there were a perfectly persuasive reason for PR to drop Spanish as one of its official languages as a condition of statehood, that would still be a racist proposition. "Racist" doesn't always mean wearing a hood and carrying a torch while actively eradicating members of a particular ethnicity. It just refers to the favoring of one culture or group, or aspects thereof, above another. That the preference in this case is made as a condition for some official status would even be an aggravating factor.

I don't care about the language as much as the attitude of the people behind it.   I do hate when though they speak of you behind your back due to your own ignorance of their language.

One time I knew a guy who was PR, but looked white.  Some other PRs thought he did not know Spanish and were critical of his character and thought they could talk bad about him and did.  We're they surprised when they found out he knew Espanol but that he was also a brother Puerto Rican.  He confronted them by telling them in Spanish he understands perfectly what they were saying and he was not Anglo Saxon but full blown Puerto Rican.


On another note in certain situations one language is critical.  Just read about the Canary Island Air Disaster that forced all control towers international to conform to English when there was ambiguity among communication that led to a 747 taking off in heavy fog colliding with another 747 still on the runway.  Even English phrases like " Clear for takeoff"  had to re phrased because it was too ambiguous as before it meant clear for queue for take off. Now " Clear for Departure"  is used and takeoff means to start movement on Runway.

Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2021, 09:48:32 AM
I don't care about the language as much as the attitude of the people behind it.   I do hate when though they speak of you behind your back due to your own ignorance of their language.

One time I knew a guy who was PR, but looked white.  Some other PRs thought he did not know Spanish and were critical of his character and thought they could talk bad about him and did.  We're they surprised when they found out he knew Espanol but that he was also a brother Puerto Rican.  He confronted them by telling them in Spanish he understands perfectly what they were saying and he was not Anglo Saxon but full blown Puerto Rican.


On another note in certain situations one language is critical.  Just read about the Canary Island Air Disaster that forced all control towers international to conform to English when there was ambiguity among communication that led to a 747 taking off in heavy fog colliding with another 747 still on the runway.  Even English phrases like " Clear for takeoff"  had to re phrased because it was too ambiguous as before it meant clear for queue for take off. Now " Clear for Departure"  is used and takeoff means to start movement on Runway.

Air traffic control is one job where I do agree it is critical to have one uniform language.

I don't doubt anyone is disputing that in safety-critical situations, steps to ensure clear communications, such as enforcing use of English, is acceptable.

Aviation radio usage is actually codified as "phraseology" where specific English phrases are keyed to specific meanings. All communications meaning a certain thing must be phrased in the prescribed way; no synonyms or alternate phrasings are allowed. One could theoretically become proficient in aviation phraseology without ever learning the underlying English language, though there are sometimes unusual situations that need to be communicated where no phraseology exists, so use of the wider English language becomes necessary then.

Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2021, 09:48:32 AM
I don't care about the language as much as the attitude of the people behind it.   I do hate when though they speak of you behind your back due to your own ignorance of their language.

Who cares what they have to say? They could always be texting each other behind your back or talking about you in English later on when you're not around. The easiest way to make this not be an issue is not bothering to care about the opinions of people that do such things.