1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"6 Californias' " to hit 2016 ballot?

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Biker, Jul 15, 2014.

  1. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    This could prove rather interesting.

    From looking at the map, any guesses as to which parts will immediately become low income shit holes?

    Have to wonder, too, which part of the state was polled to get that 59% disapproval rate for the idea?
     
  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Ha. You know the money makers want out of Cali.
     
  3. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    And the conservatives. If it goes that way, the current California electoral votes may actually swing some Republican. And wouldn't that be something?

    BTW, this ain't gonna happen. Requires a Constitutional amendment. Too big of a hurdle.
     
    ethics likes this.
  4. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    No, it doesn't require an amendment. All that's needed is approval by the state's legislature and Congress.
     
  5. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Six is crazy. Two or three might make sense, but good luck getting people to agree on where to draw the lines. THAT is why it will never succeed.

    I'd like to see the county map superimposed with the lines in the article, and the counties shaded red, blue, purple. Then we could get some real understanding of the political effect of the partitioning.

    For sure the north and south of the state are just different. We want a divorce! And honey, you can have San Francisco and Sacramento! Los Angeles would be the obvious capital of the southern half. In the 6-partate California it places L.A. and Orange in different partitions. That makes no sense to me, nor does adding Ventura County in with L.A. unless there's just two parts.

    But now we get to one of the real, practical parts: cash flow. In Los Angeles County the City of L.A. is the biggest city, there are other cities, and part is just "county" like where I live -- which by the way I love it, one less layer of government! Back to the story, San Fernando Valley has long wanted to secede from City of L.A. and become the City of San Fernando Valley. It's been on the ballot a few times and it always gets a majority in SFV but the rest of the city shoots it down. Why? Because SFV is a cash cow for the rest of the city because it is a nicer part of the city. SFV generates a disproportionately large amount of revenue compared to the monies it receives from City of L.A. SFV has a negative cash flow. A city like, oh I don't know, Watts? has a positive cash flow because it's a poor neighborhood and the tax revenue does not support the cost of the resources use. That is why there will never be a City of San Fernando Valley.

    Here is the second real, practical part: water flow. More or less the water flows from north to south because the north gets more rain and the south needs more water. In the '30s William Mulholland realized this, and in a secret project Los Angeles bought up most of the water rights of Inyo, Mono and Kern Counties, to the north in eastern California -- primarily hunting, fishing and cattle country. Mulholland built an aqueduct to Los Angeles that continues to supply part of L.A.'s water today. And even today there is resentment from the northern counties towards Los Angeles. But we own the water rights and they get a niggling amount.

    The water situation exists all over the state, and most have heard that central California -- where much of our crops are grown -- is facing a water shortage or complete absence of sufficient water to grow crops. Much of this water comes from the Sacramento Delta, in the heart of liberal territory. There is some little stupid fish they worry about there, so they decided we would rather have cute little fish than crops. As a result food prices all over the nation are going up in part due to this situation -- California grows a lot of the US's food supply.

    And that last bit explains why we want a divorce! Liberals and conservatives DO NOT get along together. I don't even vote for president because California has so many liberals and the electoral system guarantees that California will deliver all its electoral votes to the Democrat candidate.

    So there you have it, why this will never work: the status quo. Between cash flow, water flow and politics nobody will ever agree to any partition that gives another party or faction the upper hand. The situation is too complex to find any simple solution that satisfies cash flow, water flow and politics all at the same time.

    Perhaps one day it may be possible to split the state into two, but until then get used to just one single California.
     
    jimeez likes this.

Share This Page