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 or even more states. The average state in the USA has a population of around 6 million. California has 36 million. It is simply unmanageable and will only get worse.
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. Based on dividing the state into just 3 states, 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.
related links: older comments regarding this idea.
Desire to create a State called Jefferson using parts of Oregon and California.
Yep, I agree. History is old and it is time to adjust for population/place/
Are you F*ing kidding? Then we’d have fifty-TWO states, and that doesn’t make sense. We finally got a nice, round, number of 50. Let’s not screw around now! We mustn’t mess around with perfection.
Plus, imagine all the maps that would have to be reprinted. It would cost millions of dollars. Do you really want all that money to go to the greedy mapmakers? All the poor school children who can’t afford new maps and textbooks will be left behind in school.
Also, this would ruin the West Coast Pride, which is that we were able to make a coastline with the Pacific Ocean with only three states. The silly East coast uses at least 12 states to border the Atlantic Ocean (not even counting the Gulf of Mexico).
I’ve heard this argument for decades now, and remember when there was an abortive push on to split California into three states with the working titles of Logland (Northern California), Fogland (Central) and Smogland (Southern). It has been commonly pitched by rural conservatives who don’t want to pay for what they perceive as Los Angeles’ welfare mothers…
Three times as many government offices?? Only a government worker could love this plan. Let’s subdivide my city into three cities each with their own school system, fire dept, police dept, and so on. Everyone will soon work for the government.
Nah, more seriously, I’d call them:
NoCal
NewCal
SoCal.
Sounds good already, eh?
Palestinians need a new home… give California to them, or give it back to Mexico. Either way it’s good for us. It’s supposed to slide into the ocean anyway.
#6. John, how can you benefit from having oil when the local government won’t let you drill it?
You would be more likely to gain from oil if it was in another country than in California that is California. The people protect the environment not jobs.
They did a great job saving that minnow even if it cost millions and a lot of jobs. Yah have to remember first things come first and jobs don’t seem to be on the list of first things in California. I’m not saying that’s wrong. It’s just the way it is.
If homogeneity is such a great idea, why stop at California? How about splitting up Eastern & Western Massachusetts? Separating the Principality of Manhattan from the rest of New York? Overall, a goofy-ass idea that arises any/every time Republicans find themselves without a clue.
#40
The problem with your assessment is that you are assuming that the CA government somehow deserved to have all of that property tax money. Even now, CA, has the largest tax revenue of any State by far and it is still in a huge hole. Even if the economy were doing great, CA would be in a hole because the CA legislature does not know how to stop spending.
Opening up offshore drilling alone would add a couple of billion to the budget but the environmentalists won’t have it. You hit the nail on the head when you said that people were literally being taxed out of their homes and to some degree it still happens even with Prop 13.
The 2/3 measure was meant to stop the legislature from ridiculous tax hikes to pay for every art project that came down the pike.
Now that the gerrymandering proposition passed and once the legislature starts to balance out a bit, perhaps then it will be time to lower the percentage needed for tax hikes. Until that happens, I prefer that it be far more difficult for an uber-liberal government to take money out of my pocket.
The reason the CA Republicans won’t agree to a “modest” tax hike is that they never are modest and they never go down and never go away. Only Vermont has a higher income tax than CA and yet CA still has a revenue problem? That the State cannot do with the largest amount of tax revenue is a good sign that CA ought to be split up so that the tree huggers in SF can tax themselves into submission and leave the rest of us out of it.
#40
Here’s an idea: why don’t we use the Obama plan and raise the upper tax bracket on those making more than say 500K to 75%? That way we can let all of those rich Hollywood bozos like Tim Robbins pay us out of the deficit. After all, if it is a good plan for the nation it must be a good plan for CA, right? (If you believe that I have some beach front property in AZ for you.)
Ooo yeah, let’s break up the state so that all THREE of the new states can be in huge deficits. Plus the “southern california” state would demand huge subsidies from the feds to pay for more extensive anti-immigrant activities once they have to pay for it themselves.
The answer is to remove the prop restrictions on property taxes and revamp the whole tax code.
Oh that’s right, it’s California, they don’t understand that you actually have to have money in order to fund services. Moonbeams will do the trick.
ya but, we would have to clone Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger into three!, because he is doing such a fabulous job of taking over Gray Davis’s post as Governor. Right?
All you Californians who fled the Rust Belt: enjoy what ye hath wrought. We’ve managed to hold it together back home without you.
I wonder if Californians know how much the rest of the country dislikes, if not despises, you.
#1 I agree, adding four more loons to the senate is not wise.
Another state that would be a good candidate would be Texas. South, West and East Texas would be the logical split.
Just think Central California could have gay marriage, gay adoption, gay bankruptcy, gay sex clubs (wait they already have this)….Hee Hee. Still I agree, but with the proviso that Central California not be admitted into the Union, but instead it should be separated into it’s own country. It wouldn’t be long before it would be a third world Bangkok.
I do disagree with four loons be added to the Senate. Southern California would want to succeed from the Union and join with Mexico, I wouldn’t mind. Central California would become the loon state of the Union, if it could be ejected from the Union that would be just fine. Northern California would probably be like Oregon.
Since it’s daydream Friday….
There are some in the current administration who feel that a certain country in North American doesn’t do anything right and that it should try to emulated the rest of the world.
Following that logic, Instead of picking at this land change a little at a time, let’s gerrymander the whole country at once.
Change the names of all the states to what every the current White House czar says is okay.
Old state boundaries would be up for grabs with land going to who ever has the largest armed population to enforce it’s desire.
Cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington DC will probably all become seperate states, because it’s not worth fighting with the gangs.
This change will create lots of new jobs, specially in the map making and text book industries…..but then, all they’d really have to do is copy old middle-east maps
Dividing California will give Texas EVEN MORE power in textbook choice, electoral college votes and all kinds of crap.
Now breaking up Texas seems like a GREAT idea!
I’m totally amused at how many people on the blog are for BIG government. One BIG government, they say, is better than three small governments. Oh really? Where does that sort of thinking lead?
Hitler.
I call Godwin’s Law on John!
It’s an interesting idea, one worth doing in my opinion. Here’s the deal…
1. An easily distracted and undereducated majority FEAR this level of change. They know nothing of States; they merely think in terms of what Washington DC “allows”.
2. bureaucrats thrive in the environments created by those in #1.
John may be correct in his assertions, however I’m afraid we’ve gone from being citizen to believing ourselves to be subjects in a very short time. This kind of practical thinking is too revolutionary for most people…
Besides, real change is hard; the “real news” kind is easy. It makes for better photo opportunities.
Does anyone remember the old Superman: The Movie, starring Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, who wanted to send Calfornia sliding into the Pacific Ocean? Whenever I hear about all of California’s self-made troubles, I think of that movie and smile.