AARoads Forum

Non-Road Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Brandon on June 13, 2018, 09:26:39 AM

Title: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Brandon on June 13, 2018, 09:26:39 AM
It's happening yet again.

Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot (https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/us/california-three-states-initiative-ballot/index.html)

Quote
An initiative that would divide California into three separate states qualified Tuesday to appear on the ballot in November's general election.

Californians will vote whether to separate into three states: California, Northern California and Southern California -- subject to approval by US Congress.
The proposal by venture capitalist, Tim Draper to break up California in a campaign called "Cal 3," received more than 402,468 valid signatures -- surpassing the amount required by state law.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla will certify the initiative as qualified for the November 6th ballot on June 28.

Didn't they just try the Six States Plan last year?
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: 1 on June 13, 2018, 09:38:07 AM
It's not going to pass.

The current US Congress wouldn't approve it, anyway; Northern California and (regular) California are both solidly Democratic, and Southern California leans Democratic (comparable to New Mexico politically), and the current Congress is Republican.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: txstateends on June 13, 2018, 10:56:51 AM
Where would the other 2 capitals be?

TX has a few folks every so often trying to trot out either a secession plan or a multiple-parts-split plan.  It hardly lasts any time until the dust settles and nothing comes of it.  I'm not sure those folks think things through completely as to all the changes to make and hoops to jump through.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: roadman on June 13, 2018, 11:42:01 AM

TX has a few folks every so often trying to trot out either a secession plan or a multiple-parts-split plan.  It hardly lasts any time until the dust settles and nothing comes of it.  I'm not sure those folks think things through completely as to all the changes to make and hoops to jump through.
Exactly why such matters should not be decided through the initiative petition process.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: gonealookin on June 13, 2018, 12:04:52 PM
I hope they put agricultural inspection stations on the freeways at all the new borders, particularly on the ones between Los Angeles and Orange Counties.   :-D
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: SP Cook on June 13, 2018, 12:44:57 PM
As to the partisan stuff, take a gander at the really good red-blue maps, especially the ones by county, over time, and understand that times change.  Solid this or solid that is just a transitory discussion. 

In any event, nothing can come of these deals.  Unscrambling things like state debt, state assets, the UC endowment, and such is impossible. 
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 13, 2018, 01:38:36 PM
Where would the other 2 capitals be?

TX has a few folks every so often trying to trot out either a secession plan or a multiple-parts-split plan.  It hardly lasts any time until the dust settles and nothing comes of it.  I'm not sure those folks think things through completely as to all the changes to make and hoops to jump through.

That's not for them to worry about though.  Most laws that are created have a lot of behind-the-scenes changes that most people aren't aware of.

From a roads standpoint, even something as minor as changing a Yield Sign to a Stop Sign involves quite a bit of work.  The public only sees a sign change.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: WR of USA on June 13, 2018, 02:43:02 PM
Poor Interstate 5, all the exits would have to be renumbered.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: 1 on June 13, 2018, 02:45:02 PM
Poor Interstate 5, all the exits would have to be renumbered.

On the other hand, I-238 can now have a proper number.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Brandon on June 13, 2018, 02:48:49 PM
Poor Interstate 5, all the exits would have to be renumbered.

On the other hand, I-238 can now have a proper number.

Um, no it can't, sandwiched as it is between two I-x80s, which would only be in "North California".
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: kkt on June 13, 2018, 04:49:18 PM
Poor Interstate 5, all the exits would have to be renumbered.
On the other hand, I-238 can now have a proper number.

That would not be first on my list of concerns about this proposal!
 :-D
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: DTComposer on June 13, 2018, 04:58:03 PM
(this is long, and I apologize)

Once again, Mr. Draper has brought to the table an idea that has had little thought or research put into it, with it only gaining momentum by exploiting the anti-government sentiment that pervades the country nowadays, using the concept that California is "too big to govern."

First, his proposed boundaries are thoughtless, for a number of reasons. The only rational I can see for his boundaries is they create three states of roughly equal population. Meanwhile:

Let's start with splitting Santa Cruz from Monterey and San Benito Counties. They are one geographic region (and one television market) that has a region-wide planning body (Monterey Bay Association of Governments). San Benito County has turned into a exurb of Silicon Valley. And why separate Monterey and Santa Cruz, which has urban clusters and areas right against the county line (and therefore close socio-cultural ties) rather than separating Monterey from San Luis Obispo Counties (which has 60+ miles of rural area between the two closest urban clusters, AND is a historical dividing line between north and south)? Given the choice, would Monterey rather be governed by Sacramento or Los Angeles?

Next, let's look at including most of the San Joaquin Valley with Orange and San Diego Counties. The vast majority of the population, and therefore the wealth and power, will be concentrated in urban areas several hundred miles away (with no Interstate connection) from an agricultural heartland that already feels disconnected and ignored by the current power structures in Sacramento, San Francisco, or Los Angeles. Is a farmer in Madera going to feel more or less represented once his capital moves to San Diego or Anaheim? And even if you put the capital in Fresno or Bakersfield, the real power is still going to sit in the big cities (much as it does now).

Then there's the separation of Los Angeles and Orange/Riverside/San Bernardino Counties. The layers of bureaucracy and logistical headaches that will be added by splitting a continuous urban area into two different states is enormous.

(I know this situation exists elsewhere already (notably the New York area), but those regions, states and bureaucracies have existed since before the formation of this country and have had centuries to organically grow and develop, rather than being suddenly foisted upon 18 million people.)

Thousands of employers will suddenly have to deal with employees and/or locations in two states. Area codes will have to change (and it's not just splitting codes - switching offices will have to be massively rewired). Zip codes, school district boundaries, transportation planning districts, etc., etc.

(And why use county boundaries (which are antiquated, now-arbitrary lines) at all? If you're going to blow up the state, why not actually put in some effort and draw boundaries that make much more sense in addressing many of these issues (and even solve some other issues, like the tension between north and south Santa Barbara County) - but Mr. Draper seems to be too lazy or too uninformed to put in that kind of work.)

This is on top of all of the statewide bureaucracies that will suddenly triple - and this is my biggest problem with the whole proposal. Mr. Draper pushes forth a notion that the state government is "broken" - so rather than go in and fix it, he'd rather triple it without any guarantee that we won't just end up with three governments with the same problems. This reflects the trend in Washington - the promise to "drain the swamp" has just replaced the supposed corrupt, ineffective, power-hungry bureaucratic elite with corrupt, ineffective, power-hungry private-sector elite, who have the added bonus of having no experience in government and/or politics.

And if the idea was to reduce or minimize the current Democratic stranglehold over much of the state, it should be noted that this is all cyclical. We're only eight years removed from a Republican governor (who came into office when the state recalled a Democratic governor), less than a generation removed from a Republican senator and a Republican mayor of Los Angeles, and that this is the state that gave us Nixon and Reagan, not to mention Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Finally, and more trivially, why would Los Angeles/etc. get "California" while the other states get "Northern" and "Southern?" The current capital and bureaucracy is in "Northern" California, as is the flagship of the UC system and the oldest campus of the CSU system. Plus, from an (admittedly white American) historical perspective, the events that precipitated California's admittance into the union (i.e., the Gold Rush) happened in "Northern" California. And to suddenly have an governmental entity named "Southern California" that doesn't actually include most people's perception of what Southern California is (i.e., Los Angeles) is silly.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: dvferyance on June 13, 2018, 05:06:43 PM
It's not going to pass.

The current US Congress wouldn't approve it, anyway; Northern California and (regular) California are both solidly Democratic, and Southern California leans Democratic (comparable to New Mexico politically), and the current Congress is Republican.
Northern California would be Republican if the split would be move a little to the north. Like just north of San Fran. Then Redding could serve as the capitol of that state. Dosen't really matter though this is not going to happen. Not sure how West Virginia could do it.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: dvferyance on June 13, 2018, 05:07:47 PM
Poor Interstate 5, all the exits would have to be renumbered.
Not just that but think about all the state highway signs that would have to be changed. That wasn't a problem in the 1860's when WV split from Virginia.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: kkt on June 13, 2018, 05:12:23 PM
Poor Interstate 5, all the exits would have to be renumbered.

On the other hand, I-238 can now have a proper number.

Um, no it can't, sandwiched as it is between two I-x80s, which would only be in "North California".

California has been ignoring the distinction between even or odd first digits of 3dis for ages.  There aren't enough 3dis numbers to go around at all, let alone worrying about odds or evens.  I-238 could turn into I-180, because CA 180 is in Fresno County which would become part of South California while I-238 would be in North California and could duplicate the route number.

Of course the number 480 has been available for over 25 years now, and CalTrans just hasn't seen any compelling reason to change.

If I lived in a low-population part of the state - north coast, northern mountains, or east of the Sierra - I'd be awfully afraid of this proposal.  The big metro areas would dominate their three separate states even more effectively than the metro areas dominate state politics now.  At least the small areas can band together about some issues.

(this is long, and I apologize)

Once again, Mr. Draper has brought to the table an idea that has had little thought or research put into it, with it only gaining momentum by exploiting the anti-government sentiment that pervades the country nowadays, using the concept that California is "too big to govern."

First, his proposed boundaries are thoughtless, for a number of reasons. The only rational I can see for his boundaries is they create three states of roughly equal population. Meanwhile:

Let's start with splitting Santa Cruz from Monterey and San Benito Counties. They are one geographic region (and one television market) that has a region-wide planning body (Monterey Bay Association of Governments). San Benito County has turned into a exurb of Silicon Valley. And why separate Monterey and Santa Cruz, which has urban clusters and areas right against the county line (and therefore close socio-cultural ties) rather than separating Monterey from San Luis Obispo Counties (which has 60+ miles of rural area between the two closest urban clusters, AND is a historical dividing line between north and south)? Given the choice, would Monterey rather be governed by Sacramento or Los Angeles?

Next, let's look at including most of the San Joaquin Valley with Orange and San Diego Counties. The vast majority of the population, and therefore the wealth and power, will be concentrated in urban areas several hundred miles away (with no Interstate connection) from an agricultural heartland that already feels disconnected and ignored by the current power structures in Sacramento, San Francisco, or Los Angeles. Is a farmer in Madera going to feel more or less represented once his capital moves to San Diego or Anaheim? And even if you put the capital in Fresno or Bakersfield, the real power is still going to sit in the big cities (much as it does now).

Then there's the separation of Los Angeles and Orange/Riverside/San Bernardino Counties. The layers of bureaucracy and logistical headaches that will be added by splitting a continuous urban area into two different states is enormous.

(I know this situation exists elsewhere already (notably the New York area), but those regions, states and bureaucracies have existed since before the formation of this country and have had centuries to organically grow and develop, rather than being suddenly foisted upon 18 million people.)

Thousands of employers will suddenly have to deal with employees and/or locations in two states. Area codes will have to change (and it's not just splitting codes - switching offices will have to be massively rewired). Zip codes, school district boundaries, transportation planning districts, etc., etc.

(And why use county boundaries (which are antiquated, now-arbitrary lines) at all? If you're going to blow up the state, why not actually put in some effort and draw boundaries that make much more sense in addressing many of these issues (and even solve some other issues, like the tension between north and south Santa Barbara County) - but Mr. Draper seems to be too lazy or too uninformed to put in that kind of work.)

This is on top of all of the statewide bureaucracies that will suddenly triple - and this is my biggest problem with the whole proposal. Mr. Draper pushes forth a notion that the state government is "broken" - so rather than go in and fix it, he'd rather triple it without any guarantee that we won't just end up with three governments with the same problems. This reflects the trend in Washington - the promise to "drain the swamp" has just replaced the supposed corrupt, ineffective, power-hungry bureaucratic elite with corrupt, ineffective, power-hungry private-sector elite, who have the added bonus of having no experience in government and/or politics.

And if the idea was to reduce or minimize the current Democratic stranglehold over much of the state, it should be noted that this is all cyclical. We're only eight years removed from a Republican governor (who came into office when the state recalled a Democratic governor), less than a generation removed from a Republican senator and a Republican mayor of Los Angeles, and that this is the state that gave us Nixon and Reagan, not to mention Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Finally, and more trivially, why would Los Angeles/etc. get "California" while the other states get "Northern" and "Southern?" The current capital and bureaucracy is in "Northern" California, as is the flagship of the UC system and the oldest campus of the CSU system. Plus, from an (admittedly white American) historical perspective, the events that precipitated California's admittance into the union (i.e., the Gold Rush) happened in "Northern" California. And to suddenly have an governmental entity named "Southern California" that doesn't actually include most people's perception of what Southern California is (i.e., Los Angeles) is silly.

I'll just say briefly that I agree completely.  The lines are not reasonably drawn, and leaves many regions even more poorly represented than they are now.  If they split up, none of the successor states should get the name "California", just for clarity.

Also the chances of Congress approving this are worse than those of the moon becoming the 51st state.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: DTComposer on June 13, 2018, 05:22:21 PM
It's not going to pass.

The current US Congress wouldn't approve it, anyway; Northern California and (regular) California are both solidly Democratic, and Southern California leans Democratic (comparable to New Mexico politically), and the current Congress is Republican.
Northern California would be Republican if the split would be move a little to the north. Like just north of San Fran. Then Redding could serve as the capitol of that state. Dosen't really matter though this is not going to happen. Not sure how West Virginia could do it.

True, but you'd also have one of the smallest and poorest populations of any state in the union, without any real solid economic base, so any little leverage they might currently wield would disappear.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: webny99 on June 13, 2018, 05:55:26 PM
The current US Congress wouldn't approve it, anyway; Northern California and (regular) California are both solidly Democratic, and Southern California leans Democratic (comparable to New Mexico politically), and the current Congress is Republican.

The fact that one of the three isn't solidly blue means a split would probably be good for Republicans. Then at least they'd have a shot at winning in part of it, which is more than they can say now.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: rlb2024 on June 13, 2018, 06:27:01 PM
It's not going to pass.

The current US Congress wouldn't approve it, anyway; Northern California and (regular) California are both solidly Democratic, and Southern California leans Democratic (comparable to New Mexico politically), and the current Congress is Republican.
Northern California would be Republican if the split would be move a little to the north. Like just north of San Fran. Then Redding could serve as the capitol of that state. Dosen't really matter though this is not going to happen. Not sure how West Virginia could do it.
West Virginia became a state during the Civil War (1863, I think) when it broke off from Virginia and essentially rejoined the Union.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: kkt on June 13, 2018, 06:38:00 PM
The current US Congress wouldn't approve it, anyway; Northern California and (regular) California are both solidly Democratic, and Southern California leans Democratic (comparable to New Mexico politically), and the current Congress is Republican.

The fact that one of the three isn't solidly blue means a split would probably be good for Republicans. Then at least they'd have a shot at winning in part of it, which is more than they can say now.

The balance in the senate would change from 2 reliably Democratic seats to 4 reliably Democratic seats and 2 tossup seats.

Likewise, in the Electoral College the balance would change from 1 reliably Democratic state to 2 reliably Democratic states and 1 tossup state.  The GOP isn't going to go for it.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: roadman65 on June 13, 2018, 06:38:42 PM
Well I used to cater to California tourists years ago and the people in SF did not consider LA or San Diego to be California.  Many in that part of the state who patronized the hotel I used to work at, did not like the other part of the state.  I can see that happening.  However the change in power won't be effected much and Pelosi will still have her seat.

It could happen, if WV did it so can California making us a 52 state nation.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: kkt on June 13, 2018, 06:42:26 PM
West Virginia could do it because it was wartime and they petitioned for entry into the Union before Virginia rejoined.  Unless we're in the middle of a civil war and half of Congress has walked out, don't expect it to happen again.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: roadman65 on June 13, 2018, 07:55:01 PM
West Virginia could do it because it was wartime and they petitioned for entry into the Union before Virginia rejoined.  Unless we're in the middle of a civil war and half of Congress has walked out, don't expect it to happen again.

I would think you need more than congress to approve this measure.  Don't you need two thirds of the state's approval just as you would for a Constitutional Amendment?
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: oscar on June 13, 2018, 08:00:01 PM
I would think you need more than congress to approve this measure.  Don't you need two thirds of the state's approval just as you would for a Constitutional Amendment?

Nope. Per Article IV, section 3 (in a completely different part of the Constitution than governs amendments):

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

West Virginia's not the only state resulting from a split: Vermont split off from New York, Maine from Massachusetts, and Kentucky from Virginia. So it's been done before, in more peaceful circumstances than West Virginia's.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: roadman65 on June 13, 2018, 08:04:48 PM
Well it should prove interesting then. The consent will come from the November election and then after the next session of Congress will be the approval of our national government.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: oscar on June 13, 2018, 08:14:50 PM
Well it should prove interesting then. The consent will come from the November election and then after the next session of Congress will be the approval of our national government.

Not quite. Voter approval might not be enough if the existing California legislature balks. You have some interesting Supreme Court case law on whether a voter initiative can take the place of a legislative approval required by the Constitution.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: roadman65 on June 13, 2018, 08:28:59 PM
It would be interesting to see who inherits the green spaded shield? 

However, if both DE and NJ bordering each other with the same shields and also IN and IL both having the same square minus the different state names, then all three could keep em just with the new state name.

Looks like I-5, though, will miss the Central California piece as the state line would be to the west of it if I am seeing the correct map.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: 1 on June 13, 2018, 08:30:48 PM
It would be interesting to see who inherits the green spaded shield? 

However, if both DE and NJ bordering each other with the same shields and also IN and IL both having the same square minus the different state names, then all three could keep em just with the new state name.

Looks like I-5, though, will miss the Central California piece as the state line would be to the west of it if I am seeing the correct map.

Don't forget MA and CT, where the only difference is the thickness of the border, and sometimes a route shield will pretend it's in the other state.

ME also uses MA shields (standard), as do a few in NH and VT (really old ones) and RI (errors).
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: dvferyance on June 13, 2018, 08:36:11 PM
It's not going to pass.

The current US Congress wouldn't approve it, anyway; Northern California and (regular) California are both solidly Democratic, and Southern California leans Democratic (comparable to New Mexico politically), and the current Congress is Republican.
Northern California would be Republican if the split would be move a little to the north. Like just north of San Fran. Then Redding could serve as the capitol of that state. Dosen't really matter though this is not going to happen. Not sure how West Virginia could do it.

True, but you'd also have one of the smallest and poorest populations of any state in the union, without any real solid economic base, so any little leverage they might currently wield would disappear.
There would still be more people than Vermont or Wyoming. This has been the proposed state of Jefferson. This is really the one part of California that is different from the rest.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: roadman65 on June 13, 2018, 08:38:22 PM
Will NY ever break up?  Considering that the NYC metro area and Long Island control Albany I am sure those in the Adirondack Region as well as western NY State are pissed that they have no say in what gets done in the state capital.

Remember only 40 percent of the state's 19 million are outside of the NYC area and I am sure some on the right are complaining when Cuomo wins a gubnotorial election or the fact that they are paying statewide to keep the buses and the trains running within the five boroughs with part of their paychecks.  Only a few examples but I am sure being the 40 under the 60 does have some concerns on any issue thought up by SE New Yorkers I would think.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: hbelkins on June 13, 2018, 08:47:07 PM
If this happens -- and I don't think it will -- then I think it would be wrong of Congress not to approve what the people in the state wanted.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: vdeane on June 13, 2018, 08:49:46 PM
Will NY ever break up?  Considering that the NYC metro area and Long Island control Albany I am sure those in the Adirondack Region as well as western NY State are pissed that they have no say in what gets done in the state capital.

Remember only 40 percent of the state's 19 million are outside of the NYC area and I am sure some on the right are complaining when Cuomo wins a gubnotorial election or the fact that they are paying statewide to keep the buses and the trains running within the five boroughs with part of their paychecks.  Only a few examples but I am sure being the 40 under the 60 does have some concerns on any issue thought up by SE New Yorkers I would think.
There definitely have been proposals, one for most of the counties to become New Amsterdam, and one for them to join PA.  There was even one to use a constitutional convention (which the voters said no on) to split the government such that the state would effectively split without having to officially establish a new state.
 None of these went anywhere.

If this happens -- and I don't think it will -- then I think it would be wrong of Congress not to approve what the people in the state wanted.
Agreed, though I can't see the Republicans going for something that could swing between virtual status quo and favoring the Democrats depending on the political winds.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Scott5114 on June 13, 2018, 09:25:45 PM
If this happens -- and I don't think it will -- then I think it would be wrong of Congress not to approve what the people in the state wanted.

My God, I agree with H.B. Elkins on something political. :bigass:
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: KeithE4Phx on June 13, 2018, 09:47:53 PM
West Virginia's not the only state resulting from a split: Vermont split off from New York, Maine from Massachusetts, and Kentucky from Virginia. So it's been done before, in more peaceful circumstances than West Virginia's.

We've had several attempts at independent countries, as well as several state separations.

Vermont, which had been a land dispute between the then-British colonies of New York, New Hampshire, and Lower Canada (now Quebec), functioned as an independent republic between 1777 and its admission as the 14th state in 1791.

Kentucky split from Virginia in 1789, after a decade of trying to separate.  It became the 15th state in 1792.

Tennessee split from North Carolina about the same time.  An attempt at a Republic of Franklin in East Tennessee didn't last long.  It became the 16th state in 1796.

The Republic of West Florida lasted for a few months in 1810, in what is now the Gulf Coast area of Mississippi and Alabama.  The Civil War-era Bonnie Blue Flag originated here.

Maine was split off as a separate state from Massachusetts in 1820, with the Missouri Compromise.

Texas split from Mexico in the 1830s, was an independent republic for a decade or so, and was annexed and admitted to the Union in 1845.

West Virginia was created in 1863 from the western counties of Virginia that remained loyal to the Union in the Civil War.  Approval from Virginia wasn't necessary, as its government was in rebellion against the United States.

North and South Dakota were created from the Dakota Territory in 1889.  Among the reasons was to have four Republican Senators instead of two, had the entire territory been admitted as one state.

Hawaii had been a sovereign kingdom, until US corporate interests overthrew the monarchy in the 1890s.  It was governed as a republic for a few years, until it was admitted to the US as a territory in 1898.  It was granted statehood in 1959.

Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: webny99 on June 13, 2018, 10:07:12 PM
Will NY ever break up?  Considering that the NYC metro area and Long Island control Albany I am sure those in the Adirondack Region as well as western NY State are pissed that they have no say in what gets done in the state capital.
There definitely have been proposals

I've often thought that Upstate NY on its own would be an intense swing state (maybe even replacing Ohio as "bellwether") in national elections.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: webny99 on June 13, 2018, 10:18:44 PM
The current US Congress wouldn't approve it, anyway; Northern California and (regular) California are both solidly Democratic, and Southern California leans Democratic (comparable to New Mexico politically), and the current Congress is Republican.
The fact that one of the three isn't solidly blue means a split would probably be good for Republicans. Then at least they'd have a shot at winning in part of it, which is more than they can say now.
The balance in the senate would change from 2 reliably Democratic seats to 4 reliably Democratic seats and 2 tossup seats.
Likewise, in the Electoral College the balance would change from 1 reliably Democratic state to 2 reliably Democratic states and 1 tossup state.  The GOP isn't going to go for it.

I wasn't thinking of the Senate, I think 100 senators is enough!
But in the Electoral College, the GOP still has potential to at least it tap into the largest bloc of electoral votes in the nation. It's not much, but it certainly couldn't hurt.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 14, 2018, 12:04:05 AM
The water rights alone make this a non-starter.  The Sierras watershed alone basically ties the entire state together no matter what at this point.  If something like this ever was going to work it needed to be before 1900 before the infrastructure was built up.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: CtrlAltDel on June 14, 2018, 12:06:42 AM
If this happens -- and I don't think it will -- then I think it would be wrong of Congress not to approve what the people in the state wanted.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time Congress did something wrong.  :)
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: kkt on June 14, 2018, 12:11:02 AM
If this happens -- and I don't think it will -- then I think it would be wrong of Congress not to approve what the people in the state wanted.

That's an interesting point of view.  It's to some disadvantage to all the other states because it would dilute their representation in Congress.  During the pre-Civil War era when new western states were admitted in pairs to maintain balance in the Senate, was that wrong?
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: kkt on June 14, 2018, 12:18:19 AM
The water rights alone make this a non-starter.  The Sierras watershed alone basically ties the entire state together no matter what at this point.  If something like this ever was going to work it needed to be before 1900 before the infrastructure was built up.

It would certainly be one of the trickiest negotiations ever!  They would have to negotiate some kind of permanent water rights, and what would happen if there wasn't enough water to satisfy everyone's rights.  Current water rights holders would have to get their rights protected in some way.  The South Calfornia and New California sections have too many people and too much irrigation for the amount of water in their regions.

Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 14, 2018, 12:22:37 AM
The water rights alone make this a non-starter.  The Sierras watershed alone basically ties the entire state together no matter what at this point.  If something like this ever was going to work it needed to be before 1900 before the infrastructure was built up.

It would certainly be one of the trickiest negotiations ever!  They would have to negotiate some kind of permanent water rights, and what would happen if there wasn't enough water to satisfy everyone's rights.  Current water rights holders would have to get their rights protected in some way.  The South Calfornia and New California sections have too many people and too much irrigation for the amount of water in their regions.

The Southern California proposed state would stand to dominate the water rights with an exclusive border with the Colorado River.  Not only that a large chunk of the big water projects in the Sierras like Big Creek and the Los Angeles Aqueduct would be in Southern California.  So what happens to the cities on the coast in terms of water rights?  There is no way Congress would approve a measure like this with the massive headache it would cause sorting everything out.  The easier solution is just to shoot the measure down and call it a day.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: SP Cook on June 14, 2018, 09:38:48 AM

West Virginia was created in 1863 from the western counties of Virginia that remained loyal to the Union in the Civil War.  Approval from Virginia wasn't necessary, as its government was in rebellion against the United States.

Not exactly.  It went down like this:

In 1861, the Governor wired the mayor of Wheeling and told him to cease the Customs House and other federal property.   The mayor responed, more or less, f*** off. 

Then Congress declared all of the other CSA states, but only a list of counties in Virginia as "in rebelion".  A group of more or less self-appointed men, almost all of them from north of today's US 50 and west of the eastern continental divide met in Wheeling and styled themselves the "Restored ( or Reorganized) Government of Virginia" and proceeded to appoint themselves as Governor, Supreme Court, Delegate, St. Senator, and so on.  It sent two appointed Senators as "Virginia" to DC, and five of the 13 congressmen from Virginia remained in DC as well, or were replaced by appointees.  Several companies of soldiers that styled themselves as "Virginia (loyal) " were raised. 

That government, proclaiming itself as "Virginia" approved the creation of the state.  Since the part that actually was "loyal" was far too small to constitute a state, they included vastly more territory.  Going all the way to Jefferson County (home of the federal arsenal and the B&O shops, both highly valuable in that era) and including the then virtually unpopulated region now known as the "southern coalfield" as well as the Kanawha and Greenbrier valleys, all of which were uninterested in the venture and pro confederate. 

First the "Virginia" legislature and the "Virginia" governor approved and then they held a referendum.  Most counties in the southern and eastern 2/3rds of the state ignored the whole matter and no election was held there.    The "governor" of "Virginia", Frances Pierpont, then sent his permission for WV to be formed. 

Post war, most people in the southern 2/3rds of the state were disenfranchised until the mid 1870s.  Pierpont took his "government" to Alexendria and later to Richmond, but having acomplished its purpose, the army mostly ignored him and treated the remnant Virginia like the rest of the CSA. 

WV politically remained a "vote the way granddaddy shot" state until the Depression changed the political outlook. 

Oddly, the part of today's Virginia that is south and west of today's WV actually was loyal to the union and, as the "fighting ninth" congressional district was, along with neighboring parts of upper east Tennessee and southeast and south central Kentucky, the most Republican part of the south until the end of the straight ticket Jim Crow democrat era. 

Actually just allowing the 6 to 10 counties near Pennsylvania to join it would have been better for everyone. 

Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Henry on June 14, 2018, 10:40:56 AM
I don't see this coming to be. I mean, 50 states is more than enough, and I see it forever remaining that way.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: inkyatari on June 14, 2018, 11:06:24 AM
I'v had the thought that the 5 most populous cities should be their own states, but that's a non starter, as those cities want to control the rest of the state.



Kick out Cook.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: 1 on June 14, 2018, 11:20:26 AM
I'v had the thought that the 5 most populous cities should be their own states, but that's a non starter, as those cities want to control the rest of the state.

This would mean that Texas has two "holes" in it (one for Dallas and one for Houston).
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Brandon on June 14, 2018, 11:28:43 AM
I'v had the thought that the 5 most populous cities should be their own states, but that's a non starter, as those cities want to control the rest of the state.



Kick out Cook.

I'd settle for just kicking out Chicago, Evanston, and a few other close in suburbs.  NW Cook is more like DuPage County North.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: inkyatari on June 14, 2018, 11:33:51 AM
I'v had the thought that the 5 most populous cities should be their own states, but that's a non starter, as those cities want to control the rest of the state.

This would mean that Texas has two "holes" in it (one for Dallas and one for Houston).

Actually the new states would be, as of data from 2017..

NYC
Los Angeles
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix

Dallas was #9 on the list
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: webny99 on June 14, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
I'v had the thought that the 5 most populous cities should be their own states, but that's a non starter, as those cities want to control the rest of the state.
This would mean that Texas has two "holes" in it (one for Dallas and one for Houston).
Actually the new states would be, as of data from 2017..

NYC/Los Angeles/Chicago/Houston/Phoenix
Dallas was #9 on the list

It makes a lot more sense to go by metro area population instead of city proper population, due to arbitrary annexing in the south, and so forth. Dallas-Fort Worth is the 4th-largest metro area in the US, so it would be included by that criteria.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 11:44:03 AM
I'v had the thought that the 5 most populous cities should be their own states, but that's a non starter, as those cities want to control the rest of the state.

This would mean that Texas has two "holes" in it (one for Dallas and one for Houston).

Actually the new states would be, as of data from 2017..

NYC
Los Angeles
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix

Dallas was #9 on the list

Two of those are in red states, so if your issue is that blue cities are making otherwise-red states blue or purple, what would that solve?
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: TheArkansasRoadgeek on June 14, 2018, 11:48:14 AM
It would be interesting to see who inherits the green spaded shield? 
Maybe theyíll keep it or change it from state to state (as in, slight design variations).


iPhone
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Road Hog on June 14, 2018, 11:57:27 AM
Regarding Congress, what people are forgetting is that the House is very likely to flip to the Democrats in this yearís election. The Senate is probably a coin flip at this point. So in 2019, any voter-approved split in CA would have a more friendly reception on Capitol Hill. (Of course, Trump could veto it and thereís no chance Congress has the votes to override.)
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 12:13:45 PM
Regarding Congress, what people are forgetting is that the House is very likely to flip to the Democrats in this yearís election. The Senate is probably a coin flip at this point. So in 2019, any voter-approved split in CA would have a more friendly reception on Capitol Hill. (Of course, Trump could veto it and thereís no chance Congress has the votes to override.)

Statehood for DC has been no more or less popular when one party or the other controls Congress and the White House, I think the same would be the case for splitting California into 3 states.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Road Hog on June 14, 2018, 12:40:20 PM
I do think if California succeeds in splitting, the push begins immediately for Texas to do the same to balance the ledger. The winner in the end might actually be New York State, which would reclaim its top population status. (At least until Florida catches it.)
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: 1 on June 14, 2018, 12:46:01 PM
I do think if California succeeds in splitting, the push begins immediately for Texas to do the same to balance the ledger. The winner in the end might actually be New York State, which would reclaim its top population status. (At least until Florida catches it.)

Florida has already caught it.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: 1 on June 14, 2018, 01:22:41 PM
(this is an extremely rare double post from me)

What would be the new postal codes? NC and SC already exist. Maybe NO, SO, and CA?
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Stephane Dumas on June 14, 2018, 10:02:26 PM
(this is an extremely rare double post from me)

What would be the new postal codes? NC and SC already exist. Maybe NO, SO, and CA?

One of the new states could wear the name Jefferson or Lincoln or Cascadia. JN, LN and CS could be use.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: oscar on June 14, 2018, 10:20:42 PM
Regarding Congress, what people are forgetting is that the House is very likely to flip to the Democrats in this yearís election. The Senate is probably a coin flip at this point. So in 2019, any voter-approved split in CA would have a more friendly reception on Capitol Hill. (Of course, Trump could veto it and thereís no chance Congress has the votes to override.)

Good question whether Congressional approval of a new state is subject to a Presidential veto. But it might be subject to a Senate filibuster, depending on what the Senate's rules look like next year.

As for getting voter approval, this is starting to look like the failed six-state initiative. Enough issues, especially where borders would slice through regions (like the Los Angeles metro area, and the Monterey area), to say nothing of critical water rights issues, to provoke second and third thoughts, and lose votes.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Beltway on June 14, 2018, 11:54:21 PM
Will NY ever break up?  Considering that the NYC metro area and Long Island control Albany I am sure those in the Adirondack Region as well as western NY State are pissed that they have no say in what gets done in the state capital.
Remember only 40 percent of the state's 19 million are outside of the NYC area and I am sure some on the right are complaining when Cuomo wins a gubnotorial election or the fact that they are paying statewide to keep the buses and the trains running within the five boroughs with part of their paychecks.  Only a few examples but I am sure being the 40 under the 60 does have some concerns on any issue thought up by SE New Yorkers I would think.

6 counties out of the 53 control the state government.  I have friends in western NY state and their area opposes much of what comes from that governance.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 14, 2018, 11:58:14 PM
I do think if California succeeds in splitting, the push begins immediately for Texas to do the same to balance the ledger. The winner in the end might actually be New York State, which would reclaim its top population status. (At least until Florida catches it.)

Florida has already caught it.

Not only that, it has surpassed NY by about million if I recall the latest census figures correctly.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Rothman on June 15, 2018, 12:03:17 AM
Will NY ever break up?  Considering that the NYC metro area and Long Island control Albany I am sure those in the Adirondack Region as well as western NY State are pissed that they have no say in what gets done in the state capital.
Remember only 40 percent of the state's 19 million are outside of the NYC area and I am sure some on the right are complaining when Cuomo wins a gubnotorial election or the fact that they are paying statewide to keep the buses and the trains running within the five boroughs with part of their paychecks.  Only a few examples but I am sure being the 40 under the 60 does have some concerns on any issue thought up by SE New Yorkers I would think.

6 counties out of the 53 control the state government.  I have friends in western NY state and their area opposes much of what comes from that governance.
Yep, the majority of the population has a majority of representation.  Imagine that.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Scott5114 on June 15, 2018, 12:33:11 AM
(this is an extremely rare double post from me)

What would be the new postal codes? NC and SC already exist. Maybe NO, SO, and CA?

There's a lot of precedent to use the last letter of state names for some reason (VA, PA, etc.). NA, SA, CA would work.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Beltway on June 15, 2018, 12:54:19 AM
6 counties out of the 53 control the state government.  I have friends in western NY state and their area opposes much of what comes from that governance.
Yep, the majority of the population has a majority of representation.  Imagine that.

Let them create their own state.  Imagine that.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: kkt on June 15, 2018, 01:21:07 AM
Regarding Congress, what people are forgetting is that the House is very likely to flip to the Democrats in this yearís election. The Senate is probably a coin flip at this point. So in 2019, any voter-approved split in CA would have a more friendly reception on Capitol Hill. (Of course, Trump could veto it and thereís no chance Congress has the votes to override.)

Good question whether Congressional approval of a new state is subject to a Presidential veto. But it might be subject to a Senate filibuster, depending on what the Senate's rules look like next year.

As for getting voter approval, this is starting to look like the failed six-state initiative. Enough issues, especially where borders would slice through regions (like the Los Angeles metro area, and the Monterey area), to say nothing of critical water rights issues, to provoke second and third thoughts, and lose votes.

It's not really a good question whether Congress's vote to admit a state is subject to veto.  It's a very easy question, because it happened.  Andrew Johnson vetoed both Colorado and Nebraska's admission. 
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: roadman65 on June 15, 2018, 10:56:11 AM
The current US Congress wouldn't approve it, anyway; Northern California and (regular) California are both solidly Democratic, and Southern California leans Democratic (comparable to New Mexico politically), and the current Congress is Republican.
The fact that one of the three isn't solidly blue means a split would probably be good for Republicans. Then at least they'd have a shot at winning in part of it, which is more than they can say now.
The balance in the senate would change from 2 reliably Democratic seats to 4 reliably Democratic seats and 2 tossup seats.
Likewise, in the Electoral College the balance would change from 1 reliably Democratic state to 2 reliably Democratic states and 1 tossup state.  The GOP isn't going to go for it.

I wasn't thinking of the Senate, I think 100 senators is enough!
But in the Electoral College, the GOP still has potential to at least it tap into the largest bloc of electoral votes in the nation. It's not much, but it certainly couldn't hurt.
Well we would get now 104 Senators which the current California as is would get 6 people in the Senate instead of 2 and for the Left that would be a good thing.  Considering all of California is usually Dem (unless there are some counties in that state that are GOP that I do not know a bout) they will indeed have more say in that House.

Enough on sides of the aisle, this whole thing should prove interesting as we have not had a change in states since Hawaii got accepted into the Union.  So history again we may possibly witness.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: DTComposer on June 15, 2018, 12:50:10 PM
Considering all of California is usually Dem (unless there are some counties in that state that are GOP that I do not know a bout) they will indeed have more say in that House.

The proposed "Southern California" contains Orange County (3.2 million) - solidly Republican; Riverside County (2.4 million) and Kern County (.9 million) - lean Republican; and San Diego County (3.3 million), San Bernardino County (2.1 million), and Fresno County (1 million), lean Democratic but all solidly "purple."
This state could, with the right candidates, be a Republican stronghold for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: 1 on June 15, 2018, 12:58:50 PM
Considering all of California is usually Dem (unless there are some counties in that state that are GOP that I do not know a bout) they will indeed have more say in that House.

The proposed "Southern California" contains Orange County (3.2 million) - solidly Republican; Riverside County (2.4 million) and Kern County (.9 million) - lean Republican; and San Diego County (3.3 million), San Bernardino County (2.1 million), and Fresno County (1 million), lean Democratic but all solidly "purple."
This state could, with the right candidates, be a Republican stronghold for the foreseeable future.

From what I read, it's similar to New Mexico ó Bush would have won it in 2004, Obama in 2008 and 2012, and Clinton in 2016, but 2010 and 2014 would have been good Republican midterm years for both senator and governor. The only result that doesn't match is that New Mexico elected a Democratic senator in 2014.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: vdeane on June 15, 2018, 08:52:28 PM
Will NY ever break up?  Considering that the NYC metro area and Long Island control Albany I am sure those in the Adirondack Region as well as western NY State are pissed that they have no say in what gets done in the state capital.
Remember only 40 percent of the state's 19 million are outside of the NYC area and I am sure some on the right are complaining when Cuomo wins a gubnotorial election or the fact that they are paying statewide to keep the buses and the trains running within the five boroughs with part of their paychecks.  Only a few examples but I am sure being the 40 under the 60 does have some concerns on any issue thought up by SE New Yorkers I would think.

6 counties out of the 53 control the state government.  I have friends in western NY state and their area opposes much of what comes from that governance.
Yep, the majority of the population has a majority of representation.  Imagine that.
If it weren't for the downstate block, we'd probably have a 70 mph speed limit instead of being the Oregon of the East, and mile-based exit numbers would have arrived decades ago.  We also probably would have finished I-86, US 219, and I-98 (or at least started it) by now.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: michravera on June 15, 2018, 09:08:46 PM
The current US Congress wouldn't approve it, anyway; Northern California and (regular) California are both solidly Democratic, and Southern California leans Democratic (comparable to New Mexico politically), and the current Congress is Republican.
The fact that one of the three isn't solidly blue means a split would probably be good for Republicans. Then at least they'd have a shot at winning in part of it, which is more than they can say now.
The balance in the senate would change from 2 reliably Democratic seats to 4 reliably Democratic seats and 2 tossup seats.
Likewise, in the Electoral College the balance would change from 1 reliably Democratic state to 2 reliably Democratic states and 1 tossup state.  The GOP isn't going to go for it.

I wasn't thinking of the Senate, I think 100 senators is enough!
But in the Electoral College, the GOP still has potential to at least it tap into the largest bloc of electoral votes in the nation. It's not much, but it certainly couldn't hurt.
Well we would get now 104 Senators which the current California as is would get 6 people in the Senate instead of 2 and for the Left that would be a good thing.  Considering all of California is usually Dem (unless there are some counties in that state that are GOP that I do not know a bout) they will indeed have more say in that House.

Enough on sides of the aisle, this whole thing should prove interesting as we have not had a change in states since Hawaii got accepted into the Union.  So history again we may possibly witness.

More senators, yes, but this would likely be 2 more Democrat (for a total of 4) and two more Republican for a net of no change.

The House would, under current rules, remain the same size (or return to the same size after 2020 reapportionment), and, barring demographic shifts or gerrymandering, would remain in roughly the same proportion of parties. Maybe one extra representative total to the 3 Californias. Maybe one representative less. It's hard to know until after
the census.

One immediate consequence would be that Southern California would immediately revoke Sanctuary policies and you would have another state that believes in both enforcing US immigration law and in assisting the US in locating and relocating those aliens of all stripes who commit crimes located on the border with Mexico. You would have a wall of "legal entry only" states all of the way across the southern border.


Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: webny99 on June 15, 2018, 09:54:21 PM
If it weren't for the downstate block, we'd probably have a 70 mph speed limit instead of being the Oregon of the East, and mile-based exit numbers would have arrived decades ago.  We also probably would have finished I-86, US 219, and I-98 (or at least started it) by now.

I have to agree with this. I've often wondered what else would be different about upstate if it was its own state. As I said above, it would probably be a battleground in national elections.

To tie into another current thread, maybe the thruway would be six-laned by now too.  :-P
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: 1 on June 15, 2018, 10:00:47 PM
If it weren't for the downstate block, we'd probably have a 70 mph speed limit instead of being the Oregon of the East, and mile-based exit numbers would have arrived decades ago.  We also probably would have finished I-86, US 219, and I-98 (or at least started it) by now.

I have to agree with this. I've often wondered what else would be different about upstate if it was its own state. As I said above, it would probably be a battleground in national elections.

To tie into another current thread, maybe the thruway would be six-laned by now too.  :-P

Gas would be cheaper by about 10-20Ę.

In most areas, sports fans would prefer the Buffalo or Boston teams instead of the New York teams. (Near-downstate areas would prefer New York teams, as they currently do.)
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: roadman65 on June 16, 2018, 11:31:28 AM
From what I understand the split to be on the maps, LA would be in the center coastal part of the state leaving it and San Diego in two separate states.  That would make SF and Oakland in the Northern proposal area.

So Basically San Diego would become the largest city in South California, Los Angeles in the Center, and San Francisco the largest in Northern California.   

Well from the attitude  of the now defunct Sonesta Villa Resort of Orlando's many California visitors, it would sound right to the difference in Culture I got when talking with my guests from the Golden State in the early 90's.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: 1 on June 16, 2018, 11:33:15 AM
So Basically San Diego would become the largest city in South California, Los Angeles in the Center, and San Francisco the largest in Northern California.   

San Jose is larger than San Francisco.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: roadman65 on June 16, 2018, 11:45:44 AM
So Basically San Diego would become the largest city in South California, Los Angeles in the Center, and San Francisco the largest in Northern California.   

San Jose is larger than San Francisco.
I believe San Jose would not be in Northern California.  Looks to me the split would be just north of it.
https://cal3.com/proposed-measure/
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: oscar on June 16, 2018, 12:31:54 PM
So Basically San Diego would become the largest city in South California, Los Angeles in the Center, and San Francisco the largest in Northern California.   

San Jose is larger than San Francisco.
I believe San Jose would not be in Northern California.  Looks to me the split would be just north of it.
https://cal3.com/proposed-measure/

The map on that site puts the split well south of San Jose.

A split dividing the Bay Area (which includes San Jose, at the south end of the bay) into two states would be truly daffy.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: kkt on June 16, 2018, 01:56:55 PM
So Basically San Diego would become the largest city in South California, Los Angeles in the Center, and San Francisco the largest in Northern California.   

San Jose is larger than San Francisco.
I believe San Jose would not be in Northern California.  Looks to me the split would be just north of it.
https://cal3.com/proposed-measure/

The map on that site puts the split well south of San Jose.

A split dividing the Bay Area (which includes San Jose, at the south end of the bay) into two states would be truly daffy.

Yes, the split follows county lines, with all of Santa Clara County (where San Jose is) in North California.  There's a better map at

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-split-three-states-20180612-story.html

(paywall with limited number of free articles each month)

There will be a lot of split metro areas no matter how you do it.  For instance, Monterey and Santa Cruz function as the same metro area, but are split here.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Jardine on June 16, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

Not sure if the 3 state solution follows on to that or what . . . .
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

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

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

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didnít take too much of a push. 

What Iíve found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldnít be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

So to sum everything up, Iím not making a hot take about splitting the state up.  But that said not everyone even California has a high regard for the mega cities and all shlocky things like the entertainment market or tech sector that accompany them. 
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: bing101 on June 16, 2018, 08:33:28 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

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

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

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didnít take too much of a push. 

What Iíve found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldnít be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

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

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

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

But Farmers in San Joaquin Valley and Southern California say not so fast we need to feed the population here and we need the Sacramento delta as in the Southern end of the Sacramento river from Walnut grove to Rio Vista to supply water to farms and the population centers in the southland.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 08:52:33 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

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

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

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didnít take too much of a push. 

What Iíve found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldnít be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

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

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

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

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

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

But to that end it swings back to my point.  California has a lot more facets to it than people realize or see on TV.  Trouble is for anyone looking to split the state up the infrastructure is way too shared between every facet to make the concept even slightly viable.  States like NY, Florida and Texas would likely face far less practical obstacles. 
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: bing101 on June 17, 2018, 12:19:05 AM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

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

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

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didnít take too much of a push. 

What Iíve found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldnít be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Owens Valley used to have more water until Los Angeles grabbed the water rights away from the people of Owens Valley in a water debate. Now in 2018 its an area from Solano County to the west to Lake Tahoe in the east that's being targeted for a water grab it includes the Sacramento delta, river, Valley and city that's been targeted for water tunnels. I say if California were to split apart its because the rest of California is sucking off water away from the greater Sacramento area plus Solano county to other parts of California. I say the Sacramento area will be another Owens Valley given how the water debates is playing out and why other parts of California is always calling for a split.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2018, 12:26:16 AM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

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

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

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didnít take too much of a push. 

What Iíve found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldnít be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something would need to happen, the way those maps are lined up the proposed California and Northern California would be completely cut-off from any rights to the Colorado River watershed.  I'm honestly surprised that San Diego was lumped into the proposed Southern California given how the rest of the layout seems to be oriented to towards farming communities in the Central Valley and Owens Valley. 
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: bing101 on June 17, 2018, 09:41:49 AM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

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

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

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didnít take too much of a push. 

What Iíve found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldnít be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Well San Joaquin Valley once had a lake near Bakersfield but that got dried up due to various environmental disasters in the 1800's. That lake was about the size of Lake Tahoe but that was destroyed though. This is the reason why people in Placer, El Dorado counties say conserve the forests , Snowmelt and Lake Tahoe while Sacramento, Yolo and Solano counties say Save the Sacramento delta/river/valley movements.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2018, 10:00:59 AM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

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

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

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didnít take too much of a push. 

What Iíve found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldnít be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

To that end locally there is a big push for a new reservoir at Temperance Flat between Millerton Lake and he Mammoth Pool on the San Joaquin River.  Generally I found the topic silly at best and short sighted at worst.  Whenever someone brings it up to me I generally take the opportunity to be a troll and start talking about the destruction of the Tulare Lake Watershed.  Usually that grinds those conversations to a halt. 
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: bing101 on June 17, 2018, 02:08:20 PM
Then there is Jefferson the area north of the Sacramento Valley and North of Santa Rosa they have always called for Redding,CA or Eureka,CA to be the state Capital of Jefferson because they say that California is over represented by interests south of Sacramento though. What I find interesting here is that when the national media does a story on the California splitting apart its usually played in terms of the rivalry of LA and Bay Area in the sports context and with the border Wall talk in San Diego and a little bit on San Joaquin valley and a bit on Jefferson given that Jefferson is north of the Wine Country.

I noticed in the national discussion of California splitting apart, the greater Sacramento area and Solano is never represented in the national news even though its the epicenter of why these debates come up though. I say its more to do with the fact that Solano county and Sacramento do not have national news offices there and the news offices tend to be local. 
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: michravera on June 17, 2018, 02:23:27 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

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

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

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didnít take too much of a push. 

What Iíve found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldnít be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: roadman65 on June 17, 2018, 05:22:10 PM
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-split-three-states-20180612-story.html
If I am reading this correctly Orange County would be Southern California and LA would be California, thus splitting the metro LA area.  A drive to Disneyland from Universal would require a trip across the state line.

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: 1 on June 17, 2018, 05:38:32 PM
For California I could see Bakersfield or Fresno the capital though.

A capital outside the state?
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: oscar on June 17, 2018, 06:07:17 PM
What is interesting is that Sacramento is in Northern California in the proposal and not California, so its interesting to see how the transition would take place.  If Sacramento was in the proposed California, the current state government could stay put and just downsize.  However, if this does go through it could also have Northern California keep the current structure and the state that will be California would have to form a new government.

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

One collateral consequence of a state split is that it would boost prospects for a split into two circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, widely despised among Republicans, since you wouldn't have a new 12th Circuit dominated by a single state. A split wouldn't do nearly as much as some people hope to change the 9th Circuit's rulings. But the existing 9th Circuit is too hard to manage, and in particular to keep the rulings of individual three-judge panels consistent.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2018, 06:11:22 PM
For California I could see Bakersfield or Fresno the capital though.

A capital outside the state?

Iím fairly certain he meant Southern California.  Fresno could really use the shot in the arm economically if the states were ever broken up.  Right now itís all agriculture with an increasing share in distribution.  Bakersfield has those already plus the oil industry. 
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: bing101 on June 19, 2018, 10:08:30 PM
Some talk accrued last year about California turning into a defacto apartheid state with Silicon Valley tech giants and Hollywood royalty constituting the 'ruling class' and everyone else would be in the same (lowest) tier economically.

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

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

Towards the end of that employment tenure I started frequenting the Sierras, Cascades and Coast Ranges.  What I found was that those parts of California were a total 180 from the urbanized areas of Southern California.  The Central part of the state in particular has little traffic and a low cost of living.  After I was in Florida for several years I was offered a transfer to the Fresno Area.  Given that I had four national parks in a three hour radius coupled with Big Sur it didnít take too much of a push. 

What Iíve found out here is that almost nobody cares what is happening in the Southen California urban areas.  For the most part the majority of the angst is directed at Sacramento, the High Speed Rail and building more irrigational oriented reservoirs.  Essentially things couldnít be any more different than Southern California or even the Bay Area. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: DTComposer on July 18, 2018, 05:44:00 PM
Has anybody seen those portable Billboards on I-5 halfway from Sacramento to Los Angeles where the rant goes "Congress caused water crisis" or "Sacramento caused food shortages" this was during the last drought though and probably written by people connected to Tim Draper though given that this was happening when the Six California proposal was at play.

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

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

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Splitting-up-Calif-State-Supreme-Court-takes-13085880.php?t=ad04cf83ae
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: kkt on July 18, 2018, 07:41:59 PM
Every time I drive past those I think about amending them to say "Congress Industry who decided to create an agricultural heartland in a semi-arid climate-caused water crisis."

 :clap:

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

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

Good.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: bing101 on July 19, 2018, 11:44:35 AM
Every time I drive past those I think about amending them to say "Congress Industry who decided to create an agricultural heartland in a semi-arid climate-caused water crisis."

 :clap:

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

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

Good.


Agreed
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Desert Man on July 20, 2018, 10:29:23 PM
The 3-state split: never gonna happen ... CalExit (the state's secession from the union) will not happen either. And I don't expect in my life for my county: Riverside to split along the Pacific Crest Trail into two: western part remains Riverside, and the eastern part for the Palm Springs-Indio area all the way to the Colorado River.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: bing101 on July 26, 2018, 09:40:26 PM
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/video/3793111-new-california-declares-independence-from-rest-of-state/

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

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

Apparently this is allegedly from one of the meetings of the New California movement.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: sparker on July 27, 2018, 03:05:20 AM
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/video/3793111-new-california-declares-independence-from-rest-of-state/

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

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

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

First and foremost -- the state legislature won't even give this serious consideration.  Second -- the list of complaints looks like a conservative complaint list (at least the Draper 3-state concept made a serious attempt to look like it was reasonably bipartisan) -- I mean, CA opposing Trump policies as a rationale for the severance?  Seriously!!!  And third -- and I say this as a 68-year-old white guy -- the homogeneity (white, mid-40's and up) of the "New California" conventioneers is pretty damn striking.  This sure looks like a blatant attempt to tack on one more "red state" to the list.  And including mostly urban Contra Costa County in the breakaway area?  Looks like one of their principals -- or principal donors -- lives there but just doesn't want to move!  And they bring up the peripatetic "State of Jefferson" as a predecessor movement -- but that one was, like this, an obvious exercise in reactionary politics -- and one that more often than not involved southern Oregon as well.  It's actually humorous -- this whole thing could be a "South Park" episode, but featuring several Cartmans!  In reality, I'm a "classic" old-school liberal (and registered independent) -- definitely not a democratic socialist, communitarian, or anything of that ilk (finding such things counterintuitive!) -- but seeing an ideological power-play such as this brings out the "oh shit, here we go again" strain in me -- particularly in these turbulent times.  Saving grace -- just as with overreaching plans on the left end of things, this new entreaty from the right won't go anywhere! :fight:         
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: DTComposer on July 27, 2018, 08:17:47 PM
Against my better judgement, I went to their web site to look at their map. The paragraph on that page is simply laughable:

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

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

If they bother to do the slightest bit of research, say, for example, this map which just appeared in the New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-2016-voting-precinct-maps.html#7.00/37.46/-120.15
They'll find that even the population centers in the more conservative parts of the state (San Diego, Fresno, Bakersfield, the High Desert, etc.) are likely to keep any split of the state that's not basically gerrymandered at least leaning blue, if not solidly so.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: bing101 on July 28, 2018, 12:48:09 AM
https://www.kcra.com/article/at-least-500-structures-destroyed-in-deadly-carr-fire-burning-in-redding/22568595

Wait how will fire rescues be conducted if California is split up and Calfire plus the local fire departments affected by wildfires are all connected to each other by state funding and the various municipal funds to serve the fire department conducting the rescues.
And California is currently facing fires like the one in Redding where Calfire and City of Redding are currently doing rescue attempts.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Desert Man on July 28, 2018, 11:51:57 AM
https://www.kcra.com/article/at-least-500-structures-destroyed-in-deadly-carr-fire-burning-in-redding/22568595

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

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

To split the state 3 ways requires each one to develop their own public services, such as a department of transportation to maintain their roads and highways.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: bing101 on July 28, 2018, 12:22:54 PM
https://www.kcra.com/article/at-least-500-structures-destroyed-in-deadly-carr-fire-burning-in-redding/22568595

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

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

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

True I heard in past wildfires that if a fire is severe in Socal then Calfire will call on backup in Norcal units to help out though in the rescue efforts.
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: corco on July 28, 2018, 12:46:37 PM
I'd say that's the least big deal- wildland firefighters work across state lines as a matter of course in other western states (including California! They'll send their people to Idaho as they can and vice versa, for instance), so that can be worked out within existing frameworks
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 28, 2018, 12:54:31 PM
I'd say that's the least big deal- wildland firefighters work across state lines as a matter of course in other western states (including California! They'll send their people to Idaho as they can and vice versa, for instance), so that can be worked out within existing frameworks

Case and point; there are hot shot crews from Arizona working the Fergusson Fire near Mariposa and Yosemite.  Incidentally has anyone seen those fire pictures from
CA 140 at the Fergusson Slide?  Good thing the Merced River is pretty wide that it kinda acts like a natural fire break. 
Title: Re: Initiative to break California into 3 states to go on November ballot
Post by: DTComposer on August 10, 2018, 12:55:56 AM
Well, he's giving up on this one (for now), pointing fingers at the state supreme court and elsewhere, rather than the inherent flaws (legal and otherwise) in his plan:

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Billionaire-gives-up-campaign-to-split-California-13145572.php?t=4472df104b