Just to the south of Jefferson, the new state of North California (shown as purple on the map) would be much larger, with a population of almost four million, comparable to Oregon or Oklahoma.
There is no other state that would really be comparable to North California, in terms of geography and climate. Unlike any of the other new states, it would have very little desert. It would have some of the best wine country in the world, in Napa and Sonoma counties. It would have the coastal beauty of Marin as well, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco and the rest of the new state of Silicon Valley to its immediate south. Like Silicon Valley, it will have ocean access via the Golden Gate, from San Pablo and other northern bays, so it would have the option of building its own new ports.
As it is now, western North California would be a bedroom community for the industry of Silicon Valley to the south. With towns like Vallejo, Sausalito, Benicia, Santa Rosa and others along the northern reaches of the San Francisco Bay system and Sacramento Delta, access between the two states would continue to be via ferries and toll bridges to San Francisco and Oakland, and Concord in Contra Costa County. One point of contention in a breakup will be which state gets both responsibility for, and revenue from, which bridges.
The eastern part of the new state would be much more rural, with the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe, and Gold Country in the western foothills of the mountains, and its own wine region centered in Amador County. The foothills and mountains will offer recreational opportunities for fishing, hunting, hiking, and horseback, with skiing in the winter in south Tahoe. Gold Country, with its historical towns and sites, will continue to be a tourist draw. While not as high as the Sierras further south, there will be some snow pack in the northern mountains to feed the northern part of the delta, and provide water for the new state.
As with the current California, Sacramento would be a good candidate for state capital. The current Sacramento State would likely become the flagship of North California’s higher educational system, the University of North California. The campus of the University of California in Davis would probably have its focus broadened and strengthened from its current one of agricultural research, perhaps becoming North California State.
It will inherit a number of prisons, in Sacramento, Folsom, Vacaville, Mule Creek in Ione, and of course the infamous San Quentin, just over the Silicon Valley state line from San Francisco. As with Jefferson, it is possible that these will provide excess capacity for its own criminal needs (particularly if it, like Jefferson, were to legalize drugs), given that the majority of prisoners are likely generated by the big cities of Silicon Valley, and West and South California. So there may be opportunities for revenue from those states to continue to house their prisoners. Again, the new state may offer an opportunity for reform with an end to the guards’ unions.
With its current voters, North California will have a twelve-point voting edge for Democrats, 43% to a little over 31% for Republicans and almost 3% for the American Independent Party. But as with Jefferson, about twenty percent of those registered are unpartied, so the right Republican candidate and policies could potentially win the votes of the state for governor, senators and electors. A more libertarian Republican might do well there.
Next up, the city-state of Silicon Valley.
Yes, Californians, please make this happen. The state has become too unwieldy as it is.
In other news, Governor Walker has postponed until after the election a move to annex Northern Michigan aka the U.P.. Federal surplus armored Humvees and Bradleys are in hidden positions at all of the Menominee River Crossings, and there are suspicions that Wisconsonians are already inside that portion of Michigan territory.
They all have similar accents up there. I have trouble distinguishing between upper Wisconsin and western Yooper.
Geographically, that would make more sense. The only reason Michigan got the UP was as a consolation prize for having to give Toledo to Ohio after the border war.
According the The Liberal Narrative, there are supposed to be these extremist militia groups in Upper Michigan? WIll they be loyal to Walker, or are their loyalties not known?
Their loyalties, as always, lie with Finland and Cornwall. Damn those Yoopers and their saunas.
Alright, quips aside.
I am reminded of Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign and making a national sales tax, the Fair Tax, the centerpiece of his campaign.
Now I know the Mr. Huckabee is perhaps a “Social Conservative” play, and I know some dedicated So-Cons who were in the Huckabee camp, and I know that Libertarians trust Mr. Huckabee about as far as you can shake a stick. So maybe the Fair Tax was just a foil to get So-Cons and people who don’t think that deeply about economic issues on board.
But the Fair Tax was an unserious proposal from an unserious candidate. How do you get there from here? Are there intermediate steps and phase-ins and phase-outs? Every serious tax reform had some serious horse-tradin’ the “interest groups”, and it could be said that the elimination of the cap gains tax break in the 1986 Packwood bill triggered the S&L meltdown?
People are trying out the name “State of Jefferson” in the manner of some starry eyed young woman contemplating the sound of the last name of some guy she just met at a church social. Lady you don’t even know if this guy is really single let along that he has that job he told you about.
Is there a reason for splitting Jefferson from North CA?
So you can have enough states to have the catch phrase of “six states”? Actually, that’s one reason why I could never take this proposal serious. Putting Butte and Yuba in separate states. Having Marin in a state that goes in a strip from the Pacific to the Sierras, and not in one with San Francisco and the rest of the bay area.
As long as Yolo and Marin counties are together , the state of “North California” would always vote Democrat.
Not sure. You’d have to ask Draper.
I think NorCal’s political tilt would change after a breakup, since the current Democrat majority in those counties is centered in Sacramento and feeds off the power and money from the Bay Area and L.A. regions. Separate those sources from Sacramento and a huge proportion of those Democrat voters will go elsewhere.
California NEEDS to be split up. It’s too big, it’s politics have become so completely controlled by a two large cities, and everyone outside those cities gets to dance to their tune.
Beyond that, there are people, and I knew a couple, who are in the 50’s, who have quite literally NEVER been outside of L.A. County. They see no need, they’ve got beaches, mountains, malls, parks, blah, blah, blah!
Such people, should only be voting for things that affect their own area. They drive 90 miles to get from one end of L.A. to the other, regularly. But they vote a Hyper-Green, anti-automobile, anti-oil and anti-manufacturing SoCal lib pattern. And they brag about it!
Split it up. Let people control their own destiny in ways they haven’t had out there in 40 or 50 years.
I really don’t see the point of six states out of one.
Also, from a political POV, it’s a two-edged sword for both parties. From a Republican POV, it’d probably give Republicans about 20 EVs in a competitive election that currently are a D lock. But, on the flip side, it’d add 10 seats to the Senate, and at least 6 would be D, so the R’s would be basically improving their presidential chances at the cost of senate chances. For the D’s, the calculation is the same, though of course the results the exact opposite.
I grew up in California, and the divide that always struck me was coastal vs. non coastal. It seemed to me that the most viable split would therefor be the coastal counties forming one state, and the inland ones another; East and West California. East California would be quite a bit larger, but smaller in population. (By “Coastal” I mean bordering the Pacific, including SF bay, so West California would include Sacramento, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Costa Contra counties).
One other thought comes to mind; California is such a darn mess that just about ANY change would be for the better.