Splitting California?

I was just catching CNN when they said the most recent petition to split California is gaining some momentum. The last time they tried was apparantly back in 2001, but 9/11 put that on the backburner.

Anyone else following this and if so, do you think it will happen?

I read somewhere (okay, The Economist) that it should be split into N. and S, because the urban south and the not-so-urban north are almost totally different, in terms of politics, social and economical terms.

edited 14th Jul '11 3:52:45 PM by Inhopelessguy

Aw dangit, everybody else would still have to put up with LA. Those borders need to be redrawn, the whole point of splitting California is supposed to be removing LA and points south.

Wha...? Is there some wierd anti-LA thingy, like we have an anti-London thing?

It's a bitch to drive past.

Okay. So it is like an anti-London sentiment.

In that case, I share your pain. Damn entitled Londoners...

Is this why there's a North and South Dakota and Carolina? I swear, they did that just to make the number of states in the union a nice round 50.

I'm generally opposed to splitting things up for these little reasons, but I'll wait and see in this case. Hardly ever solves any problems though, this separation thing.

edited 14th Jul '11 4:12:41 PM by Gault

I was under the impression the Carolinas were split pre-Revolution. Or founded seperately or whatever.

The map that was shown on CNN was a north south split, but it wasn't a straight line. North California gets the entire upper third of the state plus two thirds of the coastline. Southern California gets the remaining third that has LA and San Diego et al plus the inner two thirds of the rest of the state.

Any reason for that?

Like I said. It's easier to group together urban areas. Like in Britain. Cities are their own administrative districts, (e.g. Birmingham, Manchester) instead of being part of a administrative county (in those cases, Warickshire and North-East).

It makes it more poltically better, and would reduce gerrymandering. It also allows economic groupings, for example, cities are service industry hubs, whereas the countryside is more agri and manufacturing.

It also makes central gov't spending easier. If Birmingham was still part of Warickshire, then urbanites would have to compete with the less urban centric demands of rural folk.

edited 14th Jul '11 4:16:45 PM by Inhopelessguy

I think they'd split that up based on population centers.

If this comes to pass, and when the two eventually go to war with one-another, the South (despite their guns) are totally fucked. They simply won't be able to contend with the sheer ferocity of the North's uber-ferocious gay shock troopers.

Just Republicans trying to get more votes.

Good point. California is the largest and most consistent Blue state in the electoral college come election year.

According to this Stones proposal getting laughed at. It's not in the cards.

@Inhopelessguy: Everybody hates Los Angelinos, they're like the New Yorkers of the west.

[CITATION NEEDED]

@ Eric. OH! So they're like the Londoners of America? Like New York is the London of America?

Wow... you have two Londons. I feel bad for you. I really do. I have to contend with one city full of hipsters, fashionistas, drug lords, and heavy crime. You have two.

This will be off-topic, but you'll never guess which metropolitian boroughs got the least amount of cuts from central gov't...

I say we reform all of the states. Honestly there's people on the other side of the state who I have nothing in common with, but we're all subject to the same rule?? WTF?

hopless: You forgot DC.

I don't think this will go through.

edited 14th Jul '11 6:34:08 PM by TuefelHundenIV

This is a problem in missouri too. Mostly liberal cities,. mostly hardcore conservative smalltowns. Ergo the cities tend to get fucked.

Well, going by that definition, there's also Chicago, Atlanta, and Detroit, although admittedly the hipsters and fashionistas would probably get stabbed in Detroit. Joking, joking, please don't kill me

edited 14th Jul '11 6:38:05 PM by deathjavu

Kansas City has a lot of hipsters and fashionistas too. After all, our plaza area of town is basically one huge art and gay restauraunt district.

I always thought Detroit was more Birmingham...

That it is. With a ton of fountains.

Its my favorite place to visit when I go up there :D

Well, aren't LA and NY the two biggest metro areas in the US? And London is the biggest here. So, I should've added size.

And also how poor the poorest are, compared to the rich. In London it is £1mn. In Birmingham it is £500,000.

I would add to the criteria of 'pretentious cities' of stealing the spotlight from other major cities. Can you tell me where my Birmingham is? Not likely. But you could point out London.

Detroit? I would've assumed that Austin would be more closer. Both have the best nightclub scenes in their regions, extremely liberal, large public sector, a huge amount of green spaces (Birmingham has the most green space per sq. km in Europe), and were former industrial centres.

Unless you meant Detroit = Birmingham, AL.

edited 14th Jul '11 6:59:27 PM by Inhopelessguy