CA split ... who's voting for/against this?

[Adam]

I hope we get to keep John and Ken

[Taylor]

Guys, you're forgetting the most important question: how would this affect the bullet train???

[red321]

 

35 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

I mean local in regards to people in Southern California answering to people in Sacramento.  Decisions that get made in Sacramento aren't always what's best for Southern California just like decisions made by Washington aren't always what's best for CA, Texas and so on.  I think it stems from decisions like declaring a sanctuary state when Sacramento speaks for the entire state and we see cities and even polls that show a lot aren't in favor of it.  The democrats do have a stranglehold on the state and I can fault the republican party but at the end of the day no side having that much power is ever a good thing.  I think something like this has to start with an initiative because how often do you see people with power deciding to give it up?  I don't envision people who run the state would spend their time, money or energy looking into breaking it up.

I get that, though I think California should have learned its lesson by now about the law of unintended consequences and ballot initiatives. Maybe if the ballot initiative was more along the lines of pushing the legislative body to come up with a plan to be reviewed I'd be more apt to consider it, though in general my view is the whole proposition is silly. It's putting on a blindfold and taking a sledge hammer without addressing the issue.

If the issue is people don't feel local issues are being addressed, than address that issue. Get real campaign finance reform in place so it's not who spends the most money wins. Ditch the jungle primary. Personally I'd ditch the term limits as well. You don't think your reps are doing your bidding...vote them out rather than keep sending them back until they term out only to replaced by the next hand selected person. And more importantly, someone get the Republican party to realize mirroring Trump and Tea Party Republicans isn't going to get you anywhere in this state.

[Adam]

Man I'm agreeing with Red a bunch lately.

[Taylor]

What would be the capital of Southern California? I nominate Rancho Santa Margarita, for the lulz.

[Adam]

Brawley

[Thomas]

Adelanto 

[the dude abides]

Ludlow

[Adam]

State Animal. Gotta be the Coyote right?

[mtangelsfan]

Duh, California City.

[the dude abides]

28 minutes ago, LHalo said:

I found North California's new flag.

So Cal's:

 

[mtangelsfan]

I think South California should be named North Mexico instead.

[Taylor]

6 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I think South California should be named North Mexico instead.

But Dodger Stadium is in New California.

[Spirit]

12 minutes ago, Adam said:

State Animal. Gotta be the Coyote right?

 

[Spirit]

3 minutes ago, Taylor said:

But Dodger Stadium is in New California.

 

I'm sure there will be people crossing the boarder

 

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

43 minutes ago, red321 said:

I get that, though I think California should have learned its lesson by now about the law of unintended consequences and ballot initiatives. Maybe if the ballot initiative was more along the lines of pushing the legislative body to come up with a plan to be reviewed I'd be more apt to consider it, though in general my view is the whole proposition is silly. It's putting on a blindfold and taking a sledge hammer without addressing the issue.

If the issue is people don't feel local issues are being addressed, than address that issue. Get real campaign finance reform in place so it's not who spends the most money wins. Ditch the jungle primary. Personally I'd ditch the term limits as well. You don't think your reps are doing your bidding...vote them out rather than keep sending them back until they term out only to replaced by the next hand selected person. And more importantly, someone get the Republican party to realize mirroring Trump and Tea Party Republicans isn't going to get you anywhere in this state.

So push the people who control the state to discuss breaking it up?  I imagine something like that would take years and in the mean time when other issues come to the forefront (education, drought, immigration, wildfires, etc) suddenly it's off the docket.  I think this could be a wake up call but I don't think it will ever happen and I don't think it will change how things are done.  I like your analogy but here's the thing we've had the same issues going on a few decades now and nothing has been done to address them while they've only gotten worse.  In 1994 when proposition 187 was passed (later declared unconstitutional) there were an estimated 1.3M illegal immigrants in the state of CA costing the state 3B a year.  Current estimates today have about 3M illegal immigrants in the state costing 23B a year.  Unfunded pension liabilities continue to grow and I remember reading when one real small city tried to get out of CalPERS the cost to exit was more than their entire budget.  In the last decade voters approved raising taxes on higher earners (before LA votes came in it was losing, raising taxes on everyone didn't pass) and the bullet train.  I think this state is past the point of no return and the only way real change will happen is when there's no other option.     

To be blunt I think it's easier to say address the issue and get things done when you aren't part of the group who feels like their voice/vote goes unheard.  I don't disagree about the Republicans but the state is on a path that simply isn't sustainable and both sides get the blame while the citizens are the ones who will lose.

[mtangelsfan]

18 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

I'm sure there will be people crossing the boarder

 

By surfing?

[red321]

13 minutes ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

So push the people who control the state to discuss breaking it up?  I imagine something like that would take years and in the mean time when other issues come to the forefront (education, drought, immigration, wildfires, etc) suddenly it's off the docket.  I think this could be a wake up call but I don't think it will ever happen and I don't think it will change how things are done.  I like your analogy but here's the thing we've had the same issues going on a few decades now and nothing has been done to address them while they've only gotten worse.  In 1994 when proposition 187 was passed (later declared unconstitutional) there were an estimated 1.3M illegal immigrants in the state of CA costing the state 3B a year.  Current estimates today have about 3M illegal immigrants in the state costing 23B a year.  Unfunded pension liabilities continue to grow and I remember reading when one real small city tried to get out of CalPERS the cost to exit was more than their entire budget.     

To be blunt I think it's easier to say address the issue and get things done when you aren't part of the group who feels like their voice/vote goes unheard.  I don't disagree about the Republicans but the state is on a path that simply isn't sustainable and both sides get the blame while the citizens are the ones who will lose.

Yes, because that is their job...and if they don't do their job you fire them and elect people who will. People complain incessantly about government, and yet representatives are re-elected at usually a better than 90% clip.

And just to clarify, you could set up a group that wouldn't just include state legislature.

And yes...I would imagine it would take years...as it should...the issues involved in potentially breaking up the 5th biggest economy in the world isn't something that occurs over night.

[Spirit]

35 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

By surfing?

 

It is New California

 

[floplag]

God what the point?  They made sure there is still dem control in each area and nothing will change.  No votes gained on any level, literaly just a waste of time.  Instead of one fucked up state well have three.
you think the liberal metro areas are suddenly going to give a frak about he inland farms and deserts?  lol 
The state already cant afford what its trying to do, how will three?  
This is just mental masturbation as far as im concerned and i want no part of it 
 

[Pujols4MVP]

10 hours ago, Taylor said:

What would be the capital of Southern California? I nominate Rancho Santa Margarita, for the lulz.

Irvine, possibly San Diego, Newport Beach or Orange. The state would call itself "The Surfer state".

 

[Lhalo]

8 hours ago, floplag said:

God what the point?  They made sure there is still dem control in each area and nothing will change.  No votes gained on any level, literaly just a waste of time.  Instead of one fucked up state well have three.
you think the liberal metro areas are suddenly going to give a frak about he inland farms and deserts?  lol 
The state already cant afford what its trying to do, how will three?  
This is just mental masturbation as far as im concerned and i want no part of it 

There’s a high probability that “South California” would be a red state. 

[Tank]

20 hours ago, red321 said:

The costs and issues associated with this would be massive.

Costs associated with breaking up things like state parks, voting systems, transportation, universities (out of state tuition), social services, k-12 schools...how to deal with pension systems and CALPERS. Water compacts (how would the city of LA owning a significant portion of Southern California work?). Significant impact to California based companies with locations in now different states will end up dealing with multiple tax laws and regulations.

and here all i was worried about was businesses having to get new stationary printed up because of area code changes to their phone numbers.

[floplag]

2 hours ago, LHalo said:

There’s a high probability that “South California” would be a red state. 

Im sure thats what will be said to try to sell it, but i wonder based on what?  the SD metro area likely out populates the rural/desert areas.   Last i checked that was still very blue so unless that shifts. OC is a bit of a wildcard thats true, recent events suggest they may be sick of Sacramentos shit but i suspect that area is probably split, meaning SD still likely topples it blue.  
I could be wrong, god knows wouldnt be the first time, but i see no real benefit to be had from this.

[Lhalo]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

Im sure thats what will be said to try to sell it, but i wonder based on what?  the SD metro area likely out populates the rural/desert areas.   Last i checked that was still very blue so unless that shifts. OC is a bit of a wildcard thats true, recent events suggest they may be sick of Sacramentos shit but i suspect that area is probably split, meaning SD still likely topples it blue.  
I could be wrong, god knows wouldnt be the first time, but i see no real benefit to be had from this.

Maybe South California enacts a voter ID law. Boom... red state.