REPOST — May as well revisit the topic one last time on a tax day where Californians pay up to 10-percent of their personal income to corrupt politicians.
California needs to be split into three states. The state was only to be allowed to be as big as it was because it was sparsely populated. With an economy that would be 7th in the world if California was a stand alone country it’s ridiculous that its large mass and huge population is represented by only two US Senators, neither of whom represent the interests of the state as a whole.
The State is also ungovernable as a State of this size with such a large population. It’s more of a country than a State by any measure – and a poorly run one, at that.
Every so often the populace discusses cutting the State in half and making two States. I’ve thought about this and cannot see any logical place to split the state in two, but can see a good argument for splitting the State into three.
First of all there are numerous political sub-cultures in California that are so distinctive that they should be separated and given statehood. These areas seldom communicate and rarely see themselves as connected to the other part. They are as follows:
Northern California – This would be a state almost the size of Oregon with similar features and cities. The State begins north of Sacramento with a boundary from Pt. Arena on the west and Lake Tahoe on the east. The suggested Capital would be Eureka or Redding. There is little psychological connection between these folks and the rest of California and their needs are under-represented because of this. The area is massive, yet there is not one University of California campus. It would do better for itself as its own State.
California – The could also be called Central California and it consists of the middle of the State south of Pt. Arena down to just South of Big Sur. From there it cuts
across keeping Los Banos while relinquishing Fresno, which people from this area think of as in Southern California. The Capital would remain Sacramento. The University of California, per se is in this area.
Southern California – This includes the entire rest of the State and constitutes the largest land mass. It would still be one of the largest states in the union. There is already a University of Southern California, which is convenient. The placement of the Capital is problematic and the candidates would include: Los Angeles, Pasadena and San Diego — although an even more neutral location such as Riverside or Santa Ana might work too.
Now to find a way to make this happen.
Having lived in both Northern and Southern California during my youth, I certainly find merit in splitting California at least in half. Southern California would start at Tehachapi Pass, meander west to just north of Santa Maria, and east-northeast to include the Owens Valley.
I don’t see much justification in having separate Central and Northern California states. Are the differences between the two really that great?
If for no other reason, this discussion alone has been worth bring up the topic.
While the division of assets alone might make this idea difficult to realize, I would like to see some sort of solution to the problem of representation for the northern half of the state. Political power will always reside with the numbers and the northern half of the state simply can’t compete.
The truth is everyone would like to live in their own version of California, but your always going to have the liberals, conservatives, kooks, freaks and all the rest that make California such a great place to live. Changing the political bounderies of our state won’t change that.
Love thy neighbor, just let them near your children…
I agree with a split, but it should just be two states. North California would be just north of Fresno. I agree that a huge issue would be water, I dont know if Socal could support itself.
Awww, Americans, please have some imagination in creating borders, like us from the Old World. Just look at the beauty of the California/Arizona border. So use some creativity, find some valley, river, mountain crest or ridge to make divisions.
I’ve had this wacky theory for a long time that we should split California into three parts. My plan would balance multiple interests. Each new state would include at least one major city and a balance of rural/ag/resource-based areas, too. A North California that took in only ag/resource-based areas north of Sacto and the Bay Area wouldn’t be as economically viable.
How about this:
North California: This would be the most rural and agriculture/resource-based of the new three states. The city anchor (and capital) would be Sacramento, which is politically and culturally more like a lot of the rural areas of North Calif. It could take in Del Norte and Humboldt counties along the coast, snake down Trinity, Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, Yolo in the middle of the state, Sacto, Amador, Calaveras and Alpine.
Central Calif: The Bay Area would be the urban core, but it would also include the less developed coastal areas of Mendocino in the north and Santa Cruz/Monterey in the south. It would extend through parts of the central valley (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, down to Merced, Fresno) and over toward Nevada (Madera, Mono).
South Calif: Straight line south of SLO, Kern, San Bernardino counties, plus above-the-line Kings, Tulare, Inyo. LA/San Diego are the urban areas, plus it also gets a chunk of the Central Valley for agribiz, etc.
-david/Oakland
Sorry, that should read:
“- States above population 10 million (the top eight) have to split in multiple States.”
It took my “eight)” and turned it into a smiley face.
#80 – John said there’s no UC in N. CA, not no CSU’s.
#7 – heh.
I’m with #101 (and #2) – Bakersfield and the whole SJ valley gotta stick together.
#49 – nice nonsequitur.
<grrr>
Splitting CA is a great idea. Let’s start with San Fransico and kick it off the coast about 200 miles west. Let’s have the 9th Circuit Court lead the exodus. Yep – That ought to do it just fine.
Any other configuration will require a new US flag and adding more seats to the Senate and House in Washington DC.
I don’t think it will happen. WE can’t even get a representative in Washington D.C. without the GOP having a fit. I hope that that will work. But this! I don’t know how it is possible?
Why just split the state..let’s split from the Union all together. We keep hearing the statistics depending on how you measure it anywhere from 5th to 7th largest country/economy in the world..and yet we are at the bottom in schools, healthcare, and the top in taxes…let’s get away from the US..they are the ones dragging down the great country of California!!!
i dont think we should split from the union but spliting into two seperate states has been a dream of mine and alot of my friends for a long time northerners and southern Californians just do not see eye to eye
I suggest you REALLy THINK about that…
N. cal supplies about 2/3′s of S. Cal’s water, and POWER…
yes but that is why we have the federal government to resolve and mandate those type of issues’ we dont give the feds money just to sit on there arses
This whole thing is why the rest of the country says:
“California – The Land of Fruits and Nuts”
So Midwest Observer, are you in favor of two states?
You see, “The Land of Fruits and Nuts” refers to Northern California (all them hippie types) while Southern California is “The Land of Confusion”.
I grew up in San Diego/LA 60 years ago and they were talking about splitting then. It would probably make sense to do, but unless someone stands to make a heap of money, it’s never going to happen.
I used to live in Eureka California. I have seen two prior times when the subject of splitting California comes up. I supported the idea then, and do today.
The question comes up on how the states can support themselves. I recall the answer given the last time was this. Taxes collected in the north are used mainly for the needs of the southern end of the state. Up north six cents for every dollar was returned for expenditures needed up there. Ok, so if that was true, the tax collected and kept up north would allow that part of the state to be perfectly fine for money. You could even reduce the taxes drastically to keep the same level of money that came in for taxes.
The last time I recall this subject came up the idea was that the North eastern part of California would consider annexation into Nevada. Redding would be the capitol. I think this would be an excellent idea. The needs of that part of the state are very different than the part where Eureka is located. Eureka would be an excellent place for the capitol. It would sure help the economy up there. When I moved the economy was driven by drugs, welfare, and burglary. That is why I moved.
i agree with splitting it up 100%.the problem we have us that up here in northern california ( from sacramento north) we get stuck with all the crappy laws that those knottheads in southern california put in. everyone says we have a say, but we havent seen it. we dont know about anything until its already put into law and were stuck with it. southern and central californ ia make all of the decisions.but it boils down to this. we as citizens dont have any say in anything to do with our state. the legislators and southern californians make the rules and the rest of us have to live with them and suffer. what ever happened to for the people by the people. thats hogwash. it hasnt been for the people by the people for a lifetime. these knotheads that southern californians put into office are stupid.
split the state, and let the people actually vote on and choose which laws we have, and which we dont.
Last thing we need is Balkanization of the states.
The fact that Chico, Redding, and Eureka are completely different from Sac, SF, LA, etc. isn’t that important. It’s like worrying about upstate NY being too different from NYC. The fact that we are diverse and celebrate it by not structuring a segregationist country is one of our greatest strengths.
Why not just let California be its own country? Then Arnold could be president.
Here’s a map I made of California in 3 states:
California split map
I’d be down for having Arnold as supreme ruler of the nation of California. Then we could get rid of a lot of red tape and fix things in an Austrian authoritarian manner…
Anyway, as a San Luis Obispan I’d say we have more of a connection to the Bay area, even though we are technically closer to LA.. (but not by much) this is because the geography is very similar around SLO county and north to the Bay area.
SLO county shares a similar liberal ideology, and are environmentally mentality as the bay area. Most people would say we feel culturally more similar to the bay area.
I think these are fundamental social differences from the Southern part of the state.
Once you get toward Buellton, and Goleta you really start to get that southern California feel. but I feel Santa Maria feels more of a connection to LA and the south than we do, so I have the Santa Maria river as the boundary in the west, then just south of Fresno in the valley.