When California Was the Bear Republic
resobscura.blogspot.com
resobscura.blogspot.com
I had learned recently that the first mayor of San Fran was also mormon. Did the mormons have a bigger influence on western expansion and the early "wild west" than public schools taught me?
Mormons also were amongst the early workers at Sutter's Mill.
Say what you may about their religion (though in a vacuum, I'd argue its no stranger than any other faith, it just has less history between founding and now, to loose details to the sands of time) - they had a huge effect on the west overall.
This new effort has like a 1% chance. I’d give Jefferson State a 2% chance.
The big driver here is that the major coastal cities and everywhere else want nothing to do with each other and are inching closer and closer to throwing up their hands and saying "screw it, it's worth the cost" and actually splitting.
The proposed map portions out the coastal urban areas among the three states in a way that nobody is pleased with. In each case you've got a bunch of delusional commie leftists sharing a state with a bunch of backwards hicks (yes, I'm sure both sides would consider those their preferred pronouns). That's exactly the status quo right now. The proposed split wouldn't make it better.
Splitting up a state will cause a lot of economic upheavel. Think about all the reverberations from changes in government funding on the city/town level for example. Just the friction of figuring everything out would cost a huge amount of money. Pretty much everyone stands to lose a few bucks in any deal that splits the state.
Splitting a state has big economic downsides and the proposed map does not reflect the cultural divides of CA so it's all downsides and no upsides therefore it's not happening, at least not with the proposed map.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160304091913/http://www.krcrtv...
So I think it's more that rural areas want nothing to do with city areas.
There is legitimate polarization in California - only the coastal areas are reliably "blue"...the three-state proposal does nothing to address that and only seeks to create more Democratic Senators.
California-split-in-three would also create an eventuality most liberals would likely want to avoid - Texas as the eventual "superstate" acting as power broker.
Riverside/San Bernardino County are now more purple, with larger blue areas. Orange County is more blue on everything except immigration. There are certainly pockets of red left, including much of imperial county, but southern california is looking much more like the bay area in the late 80s than Reagan-era SoCal.
Even central california has blue pockets with the growth of fresno. Fresno county actually went for clinton in 2016 despite solid down-ballot wins for incumbent R reps.
If current trends continue as the state grows in pop (more middle-class people priced out of the major metro areas, growth of secondary metros in logistics/agra hubs like fresno, riverside, and sacramento, and a rise in train commuting) you'll see R areas shrinking to rural areas and areas without good transportation connections. That is a big "if", though, I admit.
The new “California” in the proposal is purely coastal counties.
What you suggest might, I suppose, be an issue in the new NorCal and SoCal (though Imperial County and some other inland counties in the south, and those on the I-80 corridor from Sacramento west, are pretty reliably blue, so the “coast”/“valley” split, aside from missing that not everything off the coast is valley, is quite oversimplistic.)
> There is legitimate polarization in California - only the coastal areas are reliably "blue"
Well, the densely populated parts of the coast, plus the I-80 corridor inland about as far as Sacramento, plus Imperial County.
> the three-state proposal does nothing to address that and only seeks to create more Democratic Senators.
The three states would be, basically, two blue one red, which would add one blue- and one red-leaning state, keeping the expected absolute difference between Democratic and Republican votes in the Senate the same (what matters for simple majority votes), but narrowing the ratio of Republican structural advantage (which matters for supermajority votes.)
> California-split-in-three would also create an eventuality most liberals would likely want to avoid - Texas as the eventual "superstate" acting as power broker.
Well, and New York. (CA, TX, and NY all play that role to a degree now.)
If California splits in three, Texas undoubtedly becomes the new superpower state.
> California has been the subject of more than 220 proposals to divide it into multiple states since its admission to the U.S. in 1850, including at least 27 significant proposals in the first 150 years of statehood.
It's a fun and interesting hobby of Tim Draper[0] that will never fly. It's actually pretty great to be Californian and no one wants to fuck that up.[1]
[0] It reminds me of one of my favorite Richard Pryor jokes: "Cocaine is Nature's way of telling you you have too much money."
[1] For example, if you have enough money you can get wacky vanity laws on the ticket and everyone has a good laugh.
Back in the day, SF was going to name the new sewage treatment plant after G.W. Bush. I signed the petition but then voted against it. It was a good joke but it would have been tasteless to go through with it. "Cal 3" is just the same sort of thing writ large(er).
It’s actually refreshing having non-SV conversations about things substantive.
The original movements to split the state came from the water wars in the early and mid 20th century. In the early 20th century the Los Angeles water district took water from Owens Valley under suspicious circumstances. The movie China Town came from this era. In the mid 20th century the movement to split the state was revived when Gov Edmond G Brown and Gov Ronald Reagan (Democrat and Republican) put in the Calif Aqueduct to take water from Northern California to Southern California. Back then water was a tangible reason to split the state.
The current bill doesn't seem to have the same compelling argument. Nobody has articulated a reason to split the state outside of possible gerrymandering. Have we really sunk this low?
If you can't think of a single reason why California might want to split for better representation I wonder why you think we should have states at all (which is a perfectly fine stance, just be consistent with it).
I care more about California right now than I care about federal politics - which is currently toxic. California is currently strong enough to be considered a country. Our economy is double the size of Russia.
Look at what a strong California has done at the national level even with only 2 senators. We caused the car companies to have clean emission laws when the 2 Bush administrations opposed this. We are currently protecting immigrants when the US is not. We are currently supporting ecological programs when the US is not. We currently support women's rights when the US is on the road to dismantle women's rights.
I am not willing to give that up.
No reason in my mind to have all of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
Combine them into one state.
Louisissippibama.
State Democrats have control of all levels of government, so they need to find something to oppose outside of the state - there is no opposition left inside the state.
So a city will have like 12 and the millions of acres around it will only have 1. I think this is a general problem(under-representation) in the US e.g. The House but California is even more clear example of it.
AKA where your food comes from.
Transportation
We're currently $37.3b over budget on a "bullet train" (in quotes because much of the track can't run faster than current trains in those areas). And despite having nearly doubled its budget almost before it laid any track, the recently released plan by the commission acknowledges that it still doesn't have enough money to complete a Bay Area <-> Bakersfield first leg. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-s...
A little while back, we also replaced part of a bridge for $6.5b despite early estimates indicating it would be less than $1b. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/10/from-250-million-to-6...
Education
University of California chancellor ran a hidden account with $175m in it while pulling out her pockets and claiming they couldn't educate the students any more. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/25/california-auditor-sl...
The previous UC Chancellor at Davis was booted from office for misappropriating funds, but she's also still on the payroll and making as much as she did while chancellor... which, by the way is $400k+ http://www.slate.com/articles/life/moneybox/2012/03/uc_davis...
Health
I can't think of glaring abuses of the healthcare system off the top of my head, but it's worth noting that California has the largest population of homeless people in the US (and while most states' homeless numbers are shrinking, California's is growing) and, being a border state, a higher number of illegal immigrants than most states. Ignoring any political discussion about those groups, they both incur a disproportionate cost on healthcare as they are either incapable or disallowed from buying insurance policies yet they still need and receive healthcare.
The DMV has counterparts in every state. If you have an appointment or visit a less-busy office, you can be in and out in under half an hour once every few years.
California has more miles of roads than any other state except for Texas, and our roads get used by millions more people than the Texas roads do. More use = more wear and tear.
Failing dams. The Oroville dam failed because it was damaged by a storm. While it was being repaired, historic levels of monsoon rains flooded the reservoir behind it, requiring the use of the spillway at volumes it was not designed to handle. However, subsequent investigations revealed that the problem was not as bad as feared due to features of the dam dating back to its construction that had been forgotten in the interrim.
Poor water supply. Citation needed. LA has plenty of water. SF's source of water is so pure it doesn't even need to filter it. If we weren't exporting so much alfalfa and almonds, we wouldn't have a water crisis in the state. Literally 80% of California's water supply goes to agricultural needs (40% of California's total water). Those farmers are protected by a labyrinth of state and federal laws, centuries-old contracts, and interstate compacts.
One party rule has been a good thing for California. We have a surplus. Growing business, growing tourism, lower unemployment, lower crime.
Over regulated housing market. Citation needed. Every part of California that isn't the Bay Area is building housing just fine. (LA is on track to build several hundred thousand new units of housing from 2015 through 2020.) The problem is that so many people want to live in California that we can't keep up--there simply aren't the construction workers to build the houses/condos/apartments that we need to build to keep up with demand.
HSR. Yes, we have this thing.
Unfunded pensions. True, we have $333 billion of unfunded pension liabilities. But we can pay 69% of promised benefits, and unlike other states, California's public pensions can be reduced by legislative action, so the problem is one of political unwillingness rather than an actual crisis. (And you better believe that if a politician is faced with increasing taxes versus cutting pensions, they're going to cut pensions.)
You cannot be serious. Why do you think Brown is proposing the Delta Tunnel project? Because the state basically lurches from water crisis to water crisis.
Need a citation? Call your governor.
The OP's point was that the "crisis" exists in regulations which allow the farmers to use as much water as they currently do, not in available water supply.
It's not a simple question, really. Do the farms need as much water? Does the state need as much agriculture going on? "Call your governor" is not helpful here.
2. DMV - I will give you that, but honestly I never have an issue with it. Everything is online, and the last time I went to a DMV was 5 yrs back
3. Failing dams - there was literally one dam that failed due to an extraordinary storm. You are reaching there
4. Poor water supply - not sure what this means. Quality of water is so good, that I always drink directly from the tap. Unlike in many parts of the country.
5. One party rule - they are democratically elected, and California has very strong direct democracy as well. Besides, most states in US are one party rule. Texas, Alabama, South Carolina, Utah etc. etc.
6. Housing - sure, but we already have 40 million people, some of the densest urban areas, and heavy traffic. Pushback is to be expected on new housing
7. HSR - I love it. Connecting rural areas to urban areas through modern transport will unlock the American economy like no other. Think about it - why are we restricted to living within 30 miles of our work in the 21st century. I had a team member in China, who daily commuted 150 miles one way to Shanghai in a HSR.
8. Unfunded pensions - this is a new talking point. Has very little impact on state finances.
And, if we have a 9 billion surplus, why are my taxes so high? Other than the weather, there’s nothing I see running better than Texas where taxes are much lower. Downtown San Francisco, especially near Tenderloin, looks like a refugee camp — if the refugees were crazed drug addicts. Houston is a city of millions and has fewer homeless than the city of San Francisco. You also don’t have tent cities on the sidewalks. Nor do you have parking garages blaming thefts of auto owners who have the audacity to leave items in their car. It’s as if local governments were warning girls to not wear revealing clothing, lest they be raped. Rather than locking up smash-and-grab theives, Prop 47 treats that crime like a traffic ticket — and then blames the victim for “tempting” the crime. How backwards is that? Prop 47 — more “great” government?
But sure, it’s a “great” government here in California — the weather outside this morning is delightful. The California Office of Weather Control is doing a smashing good job.
To be fair, I am happy I relocated here; but it isn’t because of the competency of the government. Taxes, politics and government were in the “cons” column when I made the decision. Even housing costs were not a particular negative because I’d also be making a salary that could more easily afford it. But, I am not convinced that our expensive government provides a good value compared to other states.
I lived in Houston for 30 years, and the bay area for 3. If you were living outdoors, would you stay in Houston? Not a chance. If you're outdoors, go where the weather's good. Houston's weather is the opposite of good. SF's is the epitome of good.
In case you (or anyone in this thread) is unaware, AAA ("Triple-A") is a fantastic way of circumventing the DMV. I've never waited more than 15 minutes (no appointment), and the staff is quite adept at helping with more complicated situations.
There are, uhh, some times of day where you can get through the DMV in under an hour and a half, in my experience. But I'll let y'all figure that one out.
Texas has extremely high property taxes and their sales taxes are comparable to California's. The end result is roughly the same tax burden as you would face in California, but everything about Texas is worse: the weather, the people, the food, the politics, the environment, the political dysfunction, the blatant intrusion into people's rights to live their lives freely especially if you're a woman, a minority, or not straight.
Do agree about San Francisco being a shithole of homelessness, but that's a local issue, not a state issue, and part of the problem is that places like Texas send their homeless to California in part because of SF's generosity to the homeless. (Their former governor used to brag about it.)
1st - that $9 billion surplus isn't a surplus. The state has debt and unfunded liabilities of over $1 TRILLION. $9 billion is couch change in comparison. Also, Brown has already said that "surplus" is being spent.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/californias-total-state-l... http://www.capradio.org/articles/2018/05/11/governor-brown-t... https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpay...
2nd - this state is over taxes and when they can't tax us more, they levy fees. Like the the 12 cent gas tax for infrastructure projects that have already been paid for, and the increase DMV registration fees for the same. This state is one of the worst for business, which is why so many people and businesses are fleeing the state.
3rd - we have the largest homeless population in the country and are doing nothing to prevent or solve the issue. also, over 40% of people living here (citizens and non-citizens) are on some form of welfare or entitlement. where do you think that $9 billion "surplus" is going?
4th - we are at the bottom of schools systems and quality of life. see #3.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/03/01/ca... https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/02/08/geog...
5th - destruction of the middle class. our open borders policies provide cheap labor. we've also allowed non-citizens to obtain professional licenses - construction, lawyers, medical, etc. this takes away opportunities for citizens - you know the ones that are fleeing the state.
6th - speaking of non-citizens. we've issued over 1,000,000 driver's licenses to non-citizens and over 3,000,000 million own homes in our state. you don't think that amount of people, here illegally, have an affect on our middle class, our lower class - come on, this affects everything from quality of life to our school systems.
but sure it's all fine and dandy. where's the meme with the dog in the room on fire?
unlike Canada, the state of California cannot simply print its own currency to address the issue
California is the 5th biggest economy in the world. It just surpassed the UK. (http://fortune.com/2018/05/05/california-fifth-biggest-econo...). Despite only having 12% of the US population, it contributed 16% of the total US job growth over the past 5 years. California's GDP went up by $127 billion from 2016 to 2017 alone.
This, despite people fleeing the state. Good riddance--any business that can't stay afloat in California's massive market place without hand-me-outs like tax cuts is a failing business. Hundreds of thousands of other businesses are doing just fine.
How does "fifth largest economy in the world" benefit you if you can't even afford to purchase a house?
"Fifth largest economy" benefits Larry, Sergey, Tim Cook...you, not so much
And the primary problem with people not being able to afford houses is that they're not able to generate savings due to college loan debt, which is a national problem not restricted to California.
California had an enormous capacity to deliver quality of life to it's citizens, but outside of capitalists and elite workers, it's pretty much failing to deliver.
[0] The good aggregate performance coupled with the intense needs created by the poor distributional performance hurts CA in various federal funding formulas, where federal cost sharing goes down with better aggregate economic performance.
You might want to check out some rental listings and compare it to the minimum wage. Poor people come to not freeze, but that doesn't mean current circumstances aren't increasing the homeless population all on their own.
The census tells me there are ~800,000 people in LA at or around the poverty line. The LA times tells me there are ~50,000 homeless people wondering around.
Now, I don't live anywhere near LA, but the base numbers here make me think that when people say there's a major housing problem, they're telling the truth.
Again, this is just to my satisfaction, but I have looked a little more than just relying on anecdotes.
So the gap between quality of service and quantity of money is concerning. CA-run single-payer terrifies me, for instance. Mandated insurance is great, but we haven't shown the ability to effectively manage a state monopoly service so I don't want us doing it ourselves.
Good intentions, spectacularly bad execution. Currently I prefer that to bad intentions, better execution, but it's trying my patience.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_25,_Majority_...
However, the same election voters passed Prop 26 which requires a 2/3 supermajority for levy and fee increases.
They tried this 2/3 majority thing again. It's not hard nor is it especially expensive to get a ballot initiative passed, more so in an off election. Prop 8 passed the same election that Obama got elected.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Two-Thirds_Vote_for_State...