Compared here to your 2004 map seems to be not very different:
Posted on 02/25/2009 2:40:44 PM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
A former state legislator is reviving the old debate that two Californias are more easily governed than one.
Conservative Republican Bill Maze is harnessing the ire of San Joaquin Valley farmers and others as he stumps for splitting the 13 coastal counties stretching from Los Angeles to Marin from California's other 45. To that end, he is selling sponsorships in his nonprofit California Farming Industries.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I was thinking that Long Beach, OC and San Diego should be part of the Red State. LA and north to SF should be the other.
That is the map from 2004...
Oklahoma rocks!
No problem. The property taxes from L.A. county finance a lot of what is paid for in this state. They want a split? Fine, they lose our money.
How did West Virginia get created if forming a new state from within a state is unconstitutional?
California needs only restore the rights and responsibilities that accrued to local government (counties) prior to 1960. Just 50 years ago. The state can still control the licensing of vehicles and the credentialing of professionals, but all else falls to counties and municipalities including most all property and sales tax revenue. .
Not only water but electricity. We are NYC’s provider!
Keep your money, we have the water and the food. Try doing without it.
Outer and inner California would never be approved by the Democrats. The coastal Calif. area would be solidly Democrat, but the newly created inner state would be Republican. And a new state there would give Republicans many electoral votes in presidential elections.
Me too!
Yep; unfortunately, our Riverside County went blue this cycle....first time in eons.
That just means that one state cannot completely encircle another state.
My concern is that a split of California into two states must leave both states economically viable on their own. We have the north/south option and the east/west option.
North/South: If the split is below San Francisco, then Southern Cal with San Diego, Los Angeles, San Bernadino, and Monterrey, could survive. Northern Cal with San Francisco, Sacramento, Stockton/Modesto and Tahoe, might survive but will have less industry than Southern Cal.
East/West: If West Cal begins at LA and ends in Santa Rosa, then they have the tourism business, as well as Hollywood. East Cal would have the military in San Diego, Edwards, and Travis, and all the farming from Visalia to Manteca/Modesto to Stockton to Shasta. They'd have Sacramento and Tahoe, but Sacramento is a government town. Mendocino north to Redding would be very rural and not much of an economic factor. Could East Cal survive on its own?
-PJ
-————California’s problems begin with the voters.
There’s no fix for stupid.——————
Yes there is:
The death of the liberal media.
This is an old issue in California, but the proposed split has always been north-south. This is the first time I have seen a coast/inland split. Given state demographics, it would have the effect of creating an ultraconservative East California and a West California that would be more like Venezuela.
How about Crescent City? Del Norte--and Orange--are the only coastal counties to go "red" in 2008.
Only stupid people believe the liberal media.
Therefore the probem returns to the source.
The stupid voter.
I thought he did. He said "the 13 coastal counties stretching from Los Angeles to Marin."
That would leave San Diego as the major port. Perhaps Eureka could be converted into a major northern port, with rail access to the rest of the state.
-PJ
Should East Cal extend down to Mexico, it would include the agriculturally rich--and politically "blue" Imperial, Coachella, and Bard valleys, but even if it didn't it would still be the nation's salad bowl.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.