4 ms·

“The status quo is just not going to work,” said draper. “The existing breadth of industry and various interests in California is untenable.” Are there specifi

by codex 13y ago

“The status quo is just not going to work,” said draper. “The existing breadth of industry and various interests in California is untenable.” Are there specific examples of problems that splitting CA would fix? It seems that a split would make many of these new states more extreme than the average of old CA, but perhaps that is a good thing.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> “The status quo is just not going to work,” said draper. “The existing breadth of industry and various interests in California is untenable.” If true, that makes the proposed state of North California a problem, since, while much smaller, it includes much of the breadth of industry and interests of the whole existing State -- the whole Urban-suburban-rural spread, the whole coastal-interior spread, etc. I don't agree with his assessment of the problem, but if I pretend for a moment that I did, I can't see how his proposal solves it.
- 001sky 13y ago
  And by "breadth of industry" he means 'Hollywood' vs 'Silicon Valley'. Everything else is just a bunch of plebian service and food industries. The military industrial base is also not a single-geographic location, but instead rather spread out and wide ranging.
prostoalex 13y ago
Government spending across California could be prioritized differently. Central California farm communities would get more money diverted to waterways and agricultural projects. Northern Californians could finally get the school and public transportation spending up to the level that they're craving for. Southern California would probably build more highways and give more incentives to tourism and entertainment industries. Status quo is nobody being quite happy with the status quo because those jerks from <insert region where you don't live> lobbied enough for <some cause you don't care much about>.
- wwweston 13y ago
  > Central California farm communities would get more money diverted to waterways and agricultural projects. Northern Californians could finally get the school and public transportation spending up to the level that they're craving for Internal to California, a lot of the tax base comes from urban centers that would no longer be part of the same state. Federal dollars might get spent differently, I guess, but they'd also be allocated differently, and the more populous states would have at least somewhat more lobbying power. So, yes, while the new states would be able to prioritize more independently, it seems likely that the pie they're drawing from would be more limited -- possibly much more so. > Southern California would probably build more highways and give more incentives to tourism and entertainment industries. No tax base problem here, so this is potentially true, but I'm not sure it's one to put in the plus column.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Central California farm communities would get more money diverted to waterways and agricultural projects. Well, except that Central California is a giant desert, and all the significant water sources would be out of state. California water policy is largely driven through the federal government now, and splitting California up into six separate states (and, particularly, splitting the main water corridors each up into multiple states) is going to move the locus of even more of the decision-making to Washington, rather than increasing local control. > Northern Californians could finally get the school and public transportation spending up to the level that they're craving for. Even most of the "Northern" California regional transportation issues would, under the proposals, span some combination of Silicon Valley, Central California, and North California. > Southern California would probably build more highways and give more incentives to tourism and entertainment industries. Southern California already drives statewide policy, as a consequence having the vast majority of the population (and, consequently, voters and seats in both houses of the legislature.) > Status quo is nobody being quite happy with the status quo because those jerks from <insert region where you don't live> lobbied enough for <some cause you don't care much about>. As if Marin and Sacramento Counties have more commonality of interest than San Francisco and Los Angeles.
BrandonMarc 13y ago
Are there specific examples of problems that splitting CA would fix? Electoral politics. It cuts both ways, though: many in CA would love to see TX split into several weaker states.
wwweston 13y ago
> Are there specific examples of problems that splitting CA would fix? Not anywhere in any article I've seen -- just more platitudes about the size of government and vague allusions to California being ungovernable. Particularly frustrating in an article that announces it gives details. There are indeed some issues that make California difficult to govern, but if I were picking them out, I'd put limits to the power of legislators to make policy without supermajorities and the initiative process itself pretty far above the idea that we just don't have enough state lines in the region ("Hi, I think state government is a terrible problem and to solve it we should make 5 more of them.") It seems like a good guess that what Draper really means by "ungovernable" is that as the balance of power and philosophy now lies, there are some personal business or political goals that he's unable to bring to pass, despite significant wealth or influence.
- StefanKarpinski 13y ago
  My guess is that this is all about Silicon Valley secession and the five other states really just serve to make it seem more reasonable.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by codex 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> “The status quo is just not going to work,” said draper. “The existing breadth of industry and various interests in California is untenable.” If true, that makes the proposed state of North California a problem, since, while much smaller, it includes much of the breadth of industry and interests of the whole existing State -- the whole Urban-suburban-rural spread, the whole coastal-interior spread, etc. I don't agree with his assessment of the problem, but if I pretend for a moment that I did, I can't see how his proposal solves it.

001sky 13y ago
And by "breadth of industry" he means 'Hollywood' vs 'Silicon Valley'. Everything else is just a bunch of plebian service and food industries. The military industrial base is also not a single-geographic location, but instead rather spread out and wide ranging.

prostoalex 13y ago

Government spending across California could be prioritized differently. Central California farm communities would get more money diverted to waterways and agricultural projects. Northern Californians could finally get the school and public transportation spending up to the level that they're craving for. Southern California would probably build more highways and give more incentives to tourism and entertainment industries. Status quo is nobody being quite happy with the status quo because those jerks from <insert region where you don't live> lobbied enough for <some cause you don't care much about>.

wwweston 13y ago
> Central California farm communities would get more money diverted to waterways and agricultural projects. Northern Californians could finally get the school and public transportation spending up to the level that they're craving for Internal to California, a lot of the tax base comes from urban centers that would no longer be part of the same state. Federal dollars might get spent differently, I guess, but they'd also be allocated differently, and the more populous states would have at least somewhat more lobbying power. So, yes, while the new states would be able to prioritize more independently, it seems likely that the pie they're drawing from would be more limited -- possibly much more so. > Southern California would probably build more highways and give more incentives to tourism and entertainment industries. No tax base problem here, so this is potentially true, but I'm not sure it's one to put in the plus column.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Central California farm communities would get more money diverted to waterways and agricultural projects. Well, except that Central California is a giant desert, and all the significant water sources would be out of state. California water policy is largely driven through the federal government now, and splitting California up into six separate states (and, particularly, splitting the main water corridors each up into multiple states) is going to move the locus of even more of the decision-making to Washington, rather than increasing local control. > Northern Californians could finally get the school and public transportation spending up to the level that they're craving for. Even most of the "Northern" California regional transportation issues would, under the proposals, span some combination of Silicon Valley, Central California, and North California. > Southern California would probably build more highways and give more incentives to tourism and entertainment industries. Southern California already drives statewide policy, as a consequence having the vast majority of the population (and, consequently, voters and seats in both houses of the legislature.) > Status quo is nobody being quite happy with the status quo because those jerks from <insert region where you don't live> lobbied enough for <some cause you don't care much about>. As if Marin and Sacramento Counties have more commonality of interest than San Francisco and Los Angeles.

BrandonMarc 13y ago

Are there specific examples of problems that splitting CA would fix? Electoral politics. It cuts both ways, though: many in CA would love to see TX split into several weaker states.

wwweston 13y ago

> Are there specific examples of problems that splitting CA would fix? Not anywhere in any article I've seen -- just more platitudes about the size of government and vague allusions to California being ungovernable. Particularly frustrating in an article that announces it gives details. There are indeed some issues that make California difficult to govern, but if I were picking them out, I'd put limits to the power of legislators to make policy without supermajorities and the initiative process itself pretty far above the idea that we just don't have enough state lines in the region ("Hi, I think state government is a terrible problem and to solve it we should make 5 more of them.") It seems like a good guess that what Draper really means by "ungovernable" is that as the balance of power and philosophy now lies, there are some personal business or political goals that he's unable to bring to pass, despite significant wealth or influence.

StefanKarpinski 13y ago
My guess is that this is all about Silicon Valley secession and the five other states really just serve to make it seem more reasonable.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]