> Led from his base in Sonoma by a Mormon farmer and miner named William B. Ide, the California Republic officially declared independence on June 14, 1846
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?
There are huge swaths of the west (particularly the intermountain west) that never would have been settled without LDS pioneers.
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.
Sam Brannon who started the first paper in SF and hyped the Gold Rush was a mormon and did quite well for himself (considered the first gold rush millionaire).
Mormons also were amongst the early workers at Sutter's Mill.
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?
"No" reason for splitting; you know other than the fact that nearly 40 million people spread out over 150k square miles are represented in government by only 2 senators.
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 am saying the opposite. I suspect we are on the same side even if we have an opposite opinion.
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.
Those causes might be misled, though, is what he's trying to say. As in those positions likely would not have passed because there would have been more accurate representation. Do you think it's fair for a small group of people to legislate over 40 million?
There already is a request in congress which was never visited, from the 1800s. From my understanding those never die—but also very unlikely to be brought to the floor.
This new effort has like a 1% chance. I’d give Jefferson State a 2% chance.
No, that’s some nut who lives in the urals. The proposed state of Jefferson has been ongoing since a while. The last serious effort was before wwii, so it got derailed by a national emergency.
The current three way split is funded by some billionaire guy. It’s actually not a bad idea. The rural interior has way different needs than the coastal areas. Kind of like the downstate upstate dichotomy NY suffers.
> It’s actually not a bad idea. The rural interior has way different needs than the coastal areas.
The biggest impact of a new state isn't on the local area that gains a new governor but on the national legislative branch. It creates two new senators and changes the house of representatives adjusting the political balance of the entire nation.
The three-way split produces 4 new Senators, 2 which would likely be Democrats and 2 which would likely be Republican. That's a wash.
California is not currently gerrymandered as far as house seats. That could change for any the three new states.
The biggest change would actually be the electoral college. Currently California is winner-take-all and reliably blue. If they split it without splitting another large state like Texas, that compounds the current Republican advantage and makes it even easier for a Republican president to be elected while losing the popular vote.
In other words, Draper's ballot initiative is a gerrymander which benefits Republicans. And that's one reason it's going nowhere.
If all those new states go blue, however, republicans lose out on the two extra electoral votes per state. I don’t think republicans really like this either, even SoCal is in the process of going blue in the near term.
> The current three way split is funded by some billionaire guy.
True.
> It’s actually not a bad idea.
It's a phenomenally bad idea.
> The rural interior has way different needs than the coastal areas.
To the extent that's true, it just proves that the proposed three-way split is a bad idea, since it includes:
(1) a south-to-central coastal state (“California”; basically LA plus less populated coastal regions), and
(2) a Bay Area and further north coastal + northern half of the inland regions state (“Northern California”, loosely Bay Area + Sacramento + rural regions), and
(3) a far southern coast and southern half of the inland regions state (“Southern California”; San Diego + inland rural regions).
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.
As previously mentioned, the split seems engineered to amplify the Democrat party representation for the current state of CA (basically tripling it). The majority of the large land mass that makes up "Northern CA" in the three way split really wants nothing to do with SF or Sacramento.
Downvotes without comment? Always fun. Try living/spending time talking to people outside Sac or SF. Bay Area born/native/raised... spending solid time in the large section of the state east of Chico.
It’s actually refreshing having non-SV conversations about things substantive.
I didn't downvote you, but maybe easing off on the conspiratorial tone of the comment would help. Nevertheless, complaining about downvotes is against HN's guidelines; you're better off to think about how you could make the same point in a way that's more palatable to people (i.e., makes them think).
Zero and if it did, in each "state" there would immediately be calls to split each of them vertically to reflect the legitimate schism of "blue"-coast/"red"-valley.
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.
> in each "state" there would immediately be calls to split each of them vertically to reflect the legitimate schism of "blue"-coast/"red"-valley.
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.)
That split has been shifting in the last 20 years or so. When I first became aware of politics the central valley, high desert, inland (southern) valleys, and orange county were red. However, it feels like the rest of the country has been moving right, causing shifts in voting behavior. Some of that is also that califonia is a punching bag for right-wing speeches- similar to how alabama or arkansas is for left-wing speeches.
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.
> 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).
My understanding is that, while California voted to become a Republic, it was never made official. Texas is the only state in America to be its own country first.
Don’t most US states have this same demographic/cultural split? Where there are one or two urban centers where all the economic activity is and vast swaths of rural wasteland in between? Why aren’t all these other states constantly talking about splitting up (or are they?) I lived in Pennsylvania where we had Philly and Pittsburgh and then “Pensyltucky” everywhere else. Same with Florida. Yet these states don’t seem as dysfunctional as California. What gives?
Do you live in California? As a resident of the great state, I do not see our government as dysfunctional. I find it interesting that people who do not live here think that we are somehow doing it wrong. Last time I checked everything was running fairly well and we had a surplus of 9 billion dollars.
Bad schools, DMV, poor road maintenance, failing dams, poor water supply, one party rule, over regulated housing market, HSR, and unfunded pensions are some examples of dysfunctional California.
On a list of the best public schools in the US, half are located in California. There are 49 other states.
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.
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.
The entire West of the state is a coast line.... Water is a few desalination plants away. The reason no desalination plants yet is because water hasnt become that big of an issue.
1. California is home to the best public universities in the country
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.
In broad strokes, California's top spending is on Education, Healthcare, and Transportation. Sounds good, right? Unfortunately, within those categories there are glaring examples of abuse...
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...
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.
Sacramento was in fact dysfunctional until the Democrats won a supermajority. Every year was brinksmanship with the budget. They have since lost that supermajority; the CA Assembly is one seat short of a supermajority. Nevertheless, Republicans have been relatively well behaved knowing they have been punished and can be punished again by the electorate.
The supermajority budget requirement was removed by ballot measure while the Democrats held a supermajority, so while they've lost it, not having it no longer creates predictable annual budget crises.
Both the Prop 26 levy/fee supermajority and the pre-existing one for taxes can be bypassed by going straight to the voters, which Brown did for tax increases. The budget was the one thing where the supermajority requirement had no practical safety valve.
No complaints about Brown going to the voters. It was the right thing to do. My complaints are about my soggy memory.
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.
You are what's wrong with my state if you think everything is fine.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
There are plenty of apartments to rent. Purchasing a house is not the end game for everyone, nor should it be. It represents a major investment of time and money in terms of maintenance and upkeep.
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 also has the highest CoL-adjusted poverty rate in th nation, and, IIRC, a fairly high unadjusted poverty rate. [0]
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 are assuming that California makes people poor and doesn’t just attract them. That is like saying LA’s homeless problem is self grown and not the result of very good weather.
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.
I see plenty of units available for under $650/month...well within the reach of someone making minimum wage. They're not the most luxurious units or in the nicest neighborhoods but if you're making minimum wage you don't get to quibble about the lack of a pool or the proximity to a liquor store.
Between Zillow and Trulia, I'm seeing ~60 units in that price range in LA on ~8,000 listings (assuming no duplication). Hitting Craigslist, where I'd expect most of them are, I'm seeing ~100 within 8 miles of central LA. Most of them look like spare rooms.
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.
The type of units that cater to people on very low budgets don't usually get posted to the web. You find them by walking the neighborhoods and seeing "For Rent" signs. On my last run, I saw a few dozen for-rent signs in one lower-income neighborhood near downtown, with rents ranging from $250 to $650. Almost none of them are solo units--you'd have roommates--but you'd have decent housing, close to transportation and work.
California is more than LA, and the poverty rate in LA is not as bad as the more rural areas of California. A lot of California’s poverty comes from migrants.
Most CA state services I've interacted with eventually get the job done (DMV, unemployment insurance, road repair) but far later than it could be done and without great service compared to living in big cities in red states in the south.
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.
It’s great until you spend literally 4 hours at the DMV and “appointments” are available two months away at a minimum.
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.
> Houston is a city of millions and has fewer homeless than the city of San Francisco.
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.
> It’s great until you spend literally 4 hours at the DMV and “appointments” are available two months away at a minimum.
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.
+1. Well worth the ~$70 annual fee. Granted, you can't do everything there (e.g. replacement photo ID), but for vehicle registration tasks it's super fast.
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.
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.
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.)
Lived in CA my whole 30 years and your last few sentences were on the money. I wish I could say the state government was a good “value” for what we pay for it. Not there yet unfortunately
One issue that could be addressed internally is the number of state representatives and the city/rural allocation.
From my understanding California still has the same number of state representatives(from when it was admitted to the US)
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.
Splitting the state wouldn't give rural areas more representatives in the House, would it? It's proportional to population and splitting wouldn't increase the population.
Most of the dysfunction results from angst that is mostly imagined. Californians seem distraught over Donald Trump even though there is little real impact on their day-to-day lives.
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.
Tell that to Kevin McCarthy (R-CA 23rd District), who's trying to be the next Speaker of the House. Or Devin Nunes (R-CA 22nd District), the chairman of the House Intelligence committee. Some of the biggest players in the Trump soap opera come from the blue coast.
Yeah, it's pretty much the way it goes in all the New England states I've lived in. Maine is one of the clearest examples, any time there is a big election, check out the map of the results - basically Portland and its metro area votes one way, and the entire rest of the state votes the opposite way. In that case, it's completely impractical for a split to be made, and there's usually not a lot of conflict, except when out-of-state interests start trying to meddle and enact poorly conceived ballot issues.
This pattern applies in every U.S. state, which is one reason it's not very useful to think about "red states" vs. "blue states" beyond the Electoral College. In every state, there are mostly-blue cities, surrounded by purple exurbs, and then vast areas of mostly red. This is true in both "blue states" like New York [0] and "red states" like Missouri [1].
yeah but its not homogeneous. The _majority_ of a large city will vote one way, but it doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of the other party in the city.
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?