http://news.yahoo.com/billionaires-breakup-plan-chop-california-six-states-012144464.html

Quote :

"One state, to be called Silicon Valley, would include the tech hub along with the San Francisco Bay Area. Jefferson, named after the third U.S. president, would encompass the northernmost region. The state capital of Sacramento would be in North California, while South California would be made up of San Diego and the eastern suburbs of Los Angeles."

Interesting idea here. This movement already has over 800k signatures for a 2016 bill. Any of our fellow twwers, currently living on the west coast, care to weigh in? Would this kill the California brand?

I seem to think that this could happen down the road. All though six states seems to be a little excessive, I could definitely see two states.

7/15/2014 9:21:16 AM

this would be terrible for most of California and really great for some of it

7/15/2014 9:24:18 AM

Yeah it's crazy. There would be some really poor areas I think. All that desert area

7/15/2014 9:39:26 AM

Quote :

"Proponents say the division would help create a more business-friendly environment, solve the state’s water issues, and ease traffic congestion."

Lol is this a joke?

I could see splitting it into 2/3 states but 6!?

7/15/2014 10:11:32 AM

[old]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_and_secession_in_California

The big issue I see is the inevitable custody battle over California Pizza Kitchen.

7/15/2014 10:24:17 AM

gerrymandered states

yay

7/15/2014 11:26:41 AM

It's not actually going to happen. If they were to actually divide it though, an east/west split is much more appropriate since that's where the schism lies. Up and down the coast is pretty liberal/wealthy, while inland skews conservative/rural.

Personally, I like a unified CA more than a chopped up one. If Central CA/Southern CA ever became a state, it would be a shithole, sans San Diego. Imperial County is already a third world country. Kern county isn't much better either.


[Edited on July 15, 2014 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

7/15/2014 2:47:30 PM

Lol the number one product in most of extreme N CA would be meth...

7/15/2014 3:52:05 PM

800k out of 38 Million people

that's like 0.02% of the state

yep, huge support

7/15/2014 4:23:04 PM

The only people supporting this are hillbillies that practically live in another state now anyway (i.e. Jefferson) and retards that live in the desert and wastelands on the Central Valley. Republicans are going the way of the dodo in CA and this is a last ditch effort for them to make a bit of noise and fuck with Jerry Brown's impending landslide. Not happening.

7/15/2014 4:36:47 PM

I'm glad they have their signatures. It's one less thing to be harassed about outside the grocery store.

I'm not voting for this shit though.

7/15/2014 5:11:36 PM

Quote :

"800k out of 38 Million people that's like 0.02% of the state"

You fail math...unpossible!

7/15/2014 9:21:25 PM

I really hate most Californians

7/15/2014 10:38:19 PM

Haha Sayer sucks at math.

[Edited on July 15, 2014 at 10:46 PM. Reason : ^ why's that?]

7/15/2014 10:45:07 PM

Quote :

"I really hate most Californians"

And we really hate you

7/16/2014 12:42:10 AM

or 2%... i hate math

7/16/2014 9:06:09 AM

^^^ same reason a lot of North Carolinians hate folks from NJ/NY

7/16/2014 9:27:21 AM

but Californians don't have annoying accents and aren't moving to this area in huge numbers

7/16/2014 9:40:38 AM

On my visits to San Diego I noticed that most don't posses the "Southern Hospitality" that I'm familiar with... just little things like smiling and saying hi when you pass someone in the parking lot. They seemed friendlier in San Francisco though.

7/16/2014 9:48:45 AM

Quote :

"but Californians don't have annoying accents and aren't moving to this area in huge numbers"

They are invading Oregon & Washington in droves. I know native Oregonians who bitch about California folks the same way we bitch about NY/NJ & OH (at least in Charlotte) folks.

7/16/2014 10:48:10 AM

Oh, I didn't realize he lived in Washington or Oregon

7/16/2014 11:22:50 AM

Quote :

"The only people supporting this are hillbillies that practically live in another state now anyway (i.e. Jefferson) and retards that live in the desert and wastelands on the Central Valley. Republicans are going the way of the dodo in CA and this is a last ditch effort for them to make a bit of noise and fuck with Jerry Brown's impending landslide. Not happening."

I don't know if it works in this case, but generally, urban areas wind up subsidizing rural areas through government. In my reading, this is virtually true the world-over. Farmers get special support over a large fraction of the globe. Then, when there's welfare, the poorest areas have the greatest inflow (duh), and those areas are the politically "red" areas.

Silicon Valley shouldn't really have any concrete reason to hold on to the rest of the state. I'm relatively sure that they would have more money if a split did happen. The economies are very very different.

But nationally, I don't doubt this could help the Republicans in the Senate. They're already pretty strongly over-represented there, although in the House they have a measurably greater gerrymandering benefit as well.

From mine own perspective, that sounds like a shitty reason for liberals in CA to oppose this when the more regional and local effects offer obvious self-interested benefits.

[Edited on July 16, 2014 at 12:00 PM. Reason : ]

7/16/2014 11:59:53 AM

why would liberals not be opposed to this? What is liberal about helping out the 1% in Silicon Valley?

7/16/2014 12:35:24 PM

Californians =/= Yankees

I know ncstatetke has probably never left the state, but damn

And pretty much EVERYONE except tea party loons and gun nuts would oppose this. Liberals already have a super majority in the state, so there's no benefit to this idiotic plan. SV is already incredibly rich, and there's a growing backlash in SF against the tech industry and rich investors pouring in since they're driving out the poor/middle class.



[Edited on July 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2014 12:36:29 PM

Quote :

"But nationally, I don't doubt this could help the Republicans in the Senate. They're already pretty strongly over-represented there, although in the House they have a measurably greater gerrymandering benefit as well."

It probably would help them in the senate, but the senate is designed so that small, low population states aren't completely ignored in national issues. So it's not really a bug, it's a feature.

As far as the house goes, the districts are designed by the states based on individual state laws. US congress doesn't draw the districts, those are gerrymandered on a much more local basis.

California is such a huge state by both size and population and so clearly different region to region it would make sense to split it up, but it probably won't happen.

7/16/2014 12:37:28 PM

Quote :

"And pretty much EVERYONE except tea party loons and gun nuts would oppose this."

Rich Silicon Valley-types are supporting this

7/16/2014 12:42:40 PM

Maybe a few, out of touch corporate billionaires, but I highly doubt SF/Bay Area voters will show their support come election time.

[Edited on July 16, 2014 at 12:45 PM. Reason : it won't pass. ]

7/16/2014 12:44:58 PM

most voters won't, but company owners and executives will like it

7/16/2014 12:54:29 PM

they can like the idea of it all they want. it won't pass.

7/16/2014 1:00:59 PM

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Six-Californias-initiative-falls-short-of-5751683.php

not surprised that it failed to collect enough signatures. also not surprised 750k idiots thought it was a good idea either

9/12/2014 5:42:01 PM

Quote :

"  SV is already incredibly rich, and there's a growing backlash in SF against the tech industry and rich investors pouring in since they're driving out the poor/middle class. "

SF is in a housing crisis. Every building that is going up is high end condos. Some are market rate, which are still too high. Most developers would rather just pay the fee for off-site BMR housing rather than incorporate it into their buildings. Even parts of the city like mid-market, which is seeing significant development are under zoned, and the 400' tall buildings aren't getting the unit numbers to bring down rent prices throughout the rest of the city.

But the reason SF is in a housing crisis isn't because of the influx of tech money, it's the unnecessarily bureaucratic planning department and excessive nimby-ism.


Anyway, slightly beside the point. Just saw this thread, and this "plan" was surely dead in the water well before washing up on shore

[Edited on September 12, 2014 at 6:18 PM. Reason : ]

9/12/2014 6:16:17 PM

Quote :

" Every building that is going up is high end condos"

Not quite. There are townhouses going up near Park Merced and several micro units in the Mission and Hayes Valley. "Luxury" condos (the marketing buzz word that's thrown around here) is somewhat of a misnomer anyway. It usually just means in-unit laundry and a W/D. My apartment in Oakland is branded as such, but there's nothing 'luxurious' about it by normal people standards.

But yes, BANANAS (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone) have exacerbated the issue, although techies who willingly piss away $3500 a month to rent a 1BR apartment aren't exactly helping either.

9/13/2014 2:25:04 PM

Quote :

"I know ncstatetke has probably never left the state, but damn"

i don't think he was born in NC. He lives in the Pacific Northwest now. He's also, as best as I recall, somewhat of a populist Democrat.

9/13/2014 6:29:26 PM

Orange County and Santa Barbara City are very Republican areas.

Quote :

"On my visits to San Diego I noticed that most don't posses the "Southern Hospitality" that I'm familiar with... just little things like smiling and saying hi when you pass someone in the parking lot. They seemed friendlier in San Francisco though."

this is fake though. why stop and say hi to someone if you have no intentions of stopping to talk to them? further, why ask someone "how are you?" if you really aren't going to sit down and hear about how they actually are doing.

My friend from the South said she smiled at a guy as she walked by and he stopped her and asked her out to dinner. She couldn't understand why this man had bothered her.

Most people don't realize it, but in terms of practical affordability, SF has quickly become the most expensive major city in the world for real estate. Its a size and supply issue about what is called SF. There are a lot of forces in play keeping the appearance of housing costs lower than reality.

9/13/2014 9:57:09 PM

Quote :

"Most people don't realize it, but in terms of practical affordability, SF has quickly become the most expensive major city in the world for real estate. Its a size and supply issue about what is called SF. There are a lot of forces in play keeping the appearance of housing costs lower than reality."

Not only is this first part of this sentence untrue (there are other cities that are more expensive in terms of $/sqft), your second and third sentences make absolutely no sense.

9/14/2014 4:20:14 PM

maybe if you are talking about small cities or considering something like monte carlo a major city. San Fran has surpassed New York and London.

Also in real estate
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trulia/2014/05/14/top-10-least-and-most-expensive-housing-markets-for-todays-middle-class/

9/14/2014 7:57:14 PM

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101468652#.

9/14/2014 11:23:56 PM

Are you sure you read the article or watched the video? How many people does "what can $1 million buy you?" actually affect?

9/15/2014 7:13:24 PM

I don't know anything about how this split works politically, but the idea itself is good.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/13/voters-decide-if-calf-should-3-states/697054002/

[Edited on June 13, 2018 at 10:52 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2018 10:50:22 AM

Why do you think this is a good idea?

Also, Southern California ends at the Tehachapis.

6/13/2018 11:19:24 AM

It's a terrible idea and it won't happen. I'd much rather just have CA leave altogether than to allow SV dbags to Gerrymander it

6/13/2018 11:46:31 AM

https://www.thenation.com/article/this-political-scientist-says-the-left-needs-to-battle-for-democracy-as-viciously-as-the-right-fights-for-power/

A better solution would be to get rid of the senate, but that won't happen either.

[Edited on June 13, 2018 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2018 1:04:50 PM

^that is an amusing read. How can anyone think that the Democrats just need to get a simple majority of the house and senate, eliminate the filibuster, and then create an additional 14 dark blue senate seats by making Puerto Rico and DC states and then chopping California into 6 pieces? California polling indicates most citizens aren't onboard with the movement. DC becoming a state would require an amendment to the constitution, which they aren't getting with a simple majority. It's unclear whether Puerto Ricans want statehood, as the voter response on the last ballot was abysmal and previous votes always shot the notion down. With Puerto Rico, even some democrats in congress are going to have trouble voting to bring on a state with twice the poverty rate of Mississippi and all the financial burdens that come along with that.

6/13/2018 1:51:35 PM

I posted it for the viewpoint on California, but as far as Puerto Rico, they are overwhelmingly in favor of statehood. 2017 turnout was low (23%), but 97% voted in favor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2017

And it’s funny that you say low turnout invalidates the results because your man Trump only received an effective 26%, and far less if you consider the primaries.

[Edited on June 13, 2018 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2018 2:08:19 PM

contrast that 23% turnout against the 60-78% voter turnout of the previous 4 referendums for statehood that all resulted in majority no votes. The reason the turnout was so low yet so much in favor this time was due to a boycott on the referendum. Why show up to vote no when simply not showing up at all was supposed to be the same as a no vote? Trying to spin this into Puerto Rico somehow being heavily in favor of statehood is very deceptive.

6/13/2018 5:00:45 PM

The last referendum before this one was in 2012 and 61% voted for statehood.

Either way, no taxation without representation. The majority want statehood or independence.

Back to California...

[Edited on June 13, 2018 at 5:44 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2018 5:38:40 PM

That's a gross misrepresentation. The preceeding question on that ballot was "Should Puerto Rico continue its current territorial status?", on which 970,910 voted No (51.7%) 828,077 voted Yes (44.1%), and 79,982 were left blank (4,2%). For the following question of "Which non-territorial option do you prefer", 515,348 left it blank(27.4%), 834,191 chose statehood(44.4%), 454,768 chose free association(24.2%), and 74,895 chose independence(4%).

Due to the way the questions were framed, more people voted for a non-territorial option (1,363,854) than actually supported a non-territorial option (970,910). There's no way to know what non-territorial option was selected by the people who supported changing Puerto Rico's status, but even in the best case scenario of every statehood voter also voting no, that only works out to 44.4% support for statehood. The actual number is likely in the 25-35% range.

Contrast this 2012 vote, with 78% turnout of registered voters, against the 2016 vote with 23% turnout, and it looks like the support for statehood has remained at a similarly low level.

6/13/2018 6:26:06 PM