51st state? California politician pushes secession plan

[KRonn]

I doubt if this has any chance. But given how large California is, splitting the state seems like it makes some sense. Aside from the political pandering/ideology type stuff.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/14/california.secession/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

51st state? California politician pushes secession plan

Riverside, California (CNN) -- A conservative county supervisor in Southern California wants to form the 51st state by seceding the region from California, saying the state's problems require "radical" solutions.

"Listen, I knew I'd be criticized. I learned in my tenure of being a politician for 19 years, sometimes you have to do radical things to get people's attention," Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone said on CNN Thursday.

"We have hit a nerve with citizens who are just fed up with business as usual in the state," Stone said. "I'm talking about a secession plan from the state of California."

This week, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors gave the OK to Stone to hold a summit of California's local leaders to discuss remedies for the state's long list of woes -- including secession.

But the county board stopped short of endorsing Stone's secessionist plan by insisting no taxpayer money be used for the conference.

Stone has come up with a name for the new state: South California. It would be composed of 13 largely Republican counties, most of which are inland along the Nevada and Arizona state lines. The plan would exclude Los Angeles County, but would include Orange and San Diego Counties, both on the coast.

Stone has a long list of grievances against the state and its legislators: high taxes and fees, inability to reform welfare programs, high unemployment and excessive regulations.

"What the state has done is they've been balancing their budgets on the backs of our local coffers. They've been stealing our sales tax, property tax," Stone said. "The bottom line for me and my constituents is jobs. We are sending jobs out of the state of California by the train load."

Riverside County is among the hardest hit communities by the recession and mortgage meltdown, leaving many communities pockmarked with vacant homes, Stone said.

"We are the foreclosure capital of the world," Stone asserted. "We have some areas of the county that have 25% unemployment. The average in Riverside County is about 15%."

Stone's plan seems a long shot, one analyst said. There have been at least 27 efforts for secession within parts of California since the 1800s, and none has been successful.

Robert Melsh, a political science instructor at Mount San Jacinto College in San Jacinto, California, which is in Riverside County, said Stone's plan stunned him, largely because of the high cost of putting a secessionist plan before voters. He called it a "scare tactic."

"Insanity," Melsh said. "I mean this is major surgery where we need a Band-Aid.

"It takes millions of dollars to get the signatures necessary to put up an initiative," Melsh added.

Melsh also raised the question of getting a 51st state's government up and running.

"Where is he going to put the capitol? Disneyland?" Melsh said.

Stone, a pharmacist and owner of an innovative compounding pharmacy, said he drew the lines for a new state by picking 13 counties that were contiguous and fiscally conservative or moderate.

A date for the summit of local leaders has yet to be scheduled, he said.

[mongers]

I doubt if this has any chance. But given how large California is, splitting the state seems like it makes some sense. Aside from the political pandering/ideology type stuff.

Excellent, Garbon will be conscripted into the Army of the Bay. 

[garbon]

Excellent, Garbon will be conscripted into the Army of the Bay. 

I don't think New York would allow one of it's residents to be grabbed up.

Also, KRonn, I don't think a Southern California without LA makes sense. Just no.

[MadImmortalMan]

The region on the map looks like a logical extension of Nevada. Time to annex!

[KRonn]

Excellent, Garbon will be conscripted into the Army of the Bay. 

I don't think New York would allow one of it's residents to be grabbed up.

Also, KRonn, I don't think a Southern California without LA makes sense. Just no.

Well, I don't think Southern Cal w/o LA makes sense either. But I wonder if the idea of a split makes some sense? Some other states are huge with large populations, like Texas. But Cali is a huge part of the western coastline, like from Florida to Virginia on the east coast. I don't necessarily want to see a split, don't care either way.

[Fate]

The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. 

[Viking]

The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. 

Metropolexas - A state consisting of the downtown areas of Austin, Houston, Ft Worth, Dallas as well as the campus area of U of Texas at Austin.

[Eddie Teach]

The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. 

Metropolexas - A state consisting of the downtown areas of Austin, Houston, Ft Worth, Dallas as well as the campus area of U of Texas at Austin.

That would suck for all the UT students who were now out-of-state and had to pay higher tuition.

[Josquius]

Splitting California makes sense.
Along these lines does not.

[JonasSalk]

Article IV, Section 3: Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Good luck getting congress to sign off on that!

[grumbler]

Article IV, Section 3: Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Good luck getting congress to sign off on that!

As I read this, Congress cannot sign off on "new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;" that is a separate clause.  Makes West Virginia's existence kind of an interesting exercise in ignoring what was written in favor of what the readers (Lincoln's administration and Congress) wanted to see.

[Fate]

The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. 

Metropolexas - A state consisting of the downtown areas of Austin, Houston, Ft Worth, Dallas as well as the campus area of U of Texas at Austin.

Although a more realistic option could be a state that encompass El Paso, Austin, San Antonio and the Rio Grande region. We could call it Tejas.

[Admiral Yi]

The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. 

The entire stated purpose is to split off net revenue contributors from revenue consumers (i.e. LA).

[Razgovory]

The entire purpose of the split is to create a Republican state. If they carve out a Democratic state from Texas, then sure. 

The entire stated purpose is to split off net revenue contributors from revenue consumers (i.e. LA).

Really?  I would think it's the other way around.  Cities are more cost efficient then rural areas, and generate more revenue.  It costs much more to provide road service to say 100,000 people in rural Montana then it does to provide road service to 100,000 people in Newark, New Jersey.  Not to mention the fact that urban areas tend to have higher pay rates (which is balanced by higher costs in goods), then rural areas.  When this is taken as a percentage in tax the urban areas are likely to generate greater revenue per person then a rural area.

[Admiral Yi]

Really?  I would think it's the other way around.  Cities are more cost efficient then rural areas, and generate more revenue.  It costs much more to provide road service to say 100,000 people in rural Montana then it does to provide road service to 100,000 people in Newark, New Jersey.  Not to mention the fact that urban areas tend to have higher pay rates (which is balanced by higher costs in goods), then rural areas.  When this is taken as a percentage in tax the urban areas are likely to generate greater revenue per person then a rural area.

Orange County and San Diego are hardly rural areas. 

It's debateable whether LA generates more tax revenue per inhabitant than the southern counties.  What's not debateable is that LA consumes much more revenue.