Splitting states

[cpzilliacus]

Can there be a fictional and off-topic post?

If the moderators agree.

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

I would like to see all of what is now D.C. retroceded, except for the already-defined National Capital Service Area, "The National Capital Service Area is in the District of Columbia and includes the principal federal monuments, the White House, the Capitol Building, the United States Supreme Court Building, and the federal executive, legislative, and judicial office buildings located adjacent to the Mall and the Capitol Building ..."

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

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

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

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

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

O.K.

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

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

[oscar]

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

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

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

[NE2]

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

[1995hoo]

"Actively discourage" ≠ "prohibit."

[NE2]

"Actively discourage" ≠ "prohibit."

Unless poo.

[empirestate]

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

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

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

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

I need to go get breakfast now.

[NE2]

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

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

[hotdogPi]

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

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

[Pete from Boston]

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

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

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

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

I need to go get breakfast now.

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

[Zeffy]

So much of New Jersey is urbanized now that it may no longer be as clear why the tiny hole is separate from a doughnut not much different from it.

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

[Pete from Boston]

So much of New Jersey is urbanized now that it may no longer be as clear why the tiny hole is separate from a doughnut not much different from it.

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

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

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

[Zeffy]

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

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

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

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

[bing101]

http://www.stateintegrity.org/your_state

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

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

[vdeane]

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

[DTComposer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SP Cook]

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

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

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

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

[Pete from Boston]

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

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

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

[DTComposer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Scott5114]

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

[DTComposer]

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



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

[bing101]

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

[froggie]

Why the name "Cahuenga"?

[DTComposer]

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

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

[froggie]

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

[mrsman]

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


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

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

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

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