Billionaire's breakup plan would chop California into six states.
Options
cobbland
Members Posts: 3,768 ✭✭✭✭✭
Billionaire's breakup plan would chop California into six states
BY JENNIFER CHAUSSEE
San Francisco Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:33pm EDT
Timothy Draper, Founder and Managing Director of Draper Fisher Jurvetson, speaks at the Reuters Global Technology Summit New York May 21, 2009 file photo.
(Reuters) - A long-shot effort to break California into six separate states got a boost on Monday, when the billionaire venture capitalist behind the proposal said he had gathered enough signatures to place it on the ballot in two years.
Timothy Draper, a founder of a Silicon Valley-based venture capital firm that has invested in Twitter, Skype and Tesla, among other companies, has been agitating for months for a ballot initiative to chop the most populous U.S. state into smaller entities.
"It’s important because it will help us create a more responsive, more innovative and more local government, and that ultimately will end up being better for all of Californians," said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the campaign. "The idea ... is to create six states with responsive local governments - states that are more representative and accountable to their constituents."
Salazar said Monday that the campaign had gathered more than the roughly 808,000 signatures needed to place the measure on the November, 2016 ballot. Draper and other supporters plan to file the signatures with California Secretary of State Debra Bowen on Tuesday.
But the plan has raised bipartisan hackles across the state, and opponents say it stands little chance of gaining voter approval. If it does win the support of voters, it must still be passed by Congress, which opponents say is also unlikely.
"This is a colossal and divisive waste of time, energy, and money that will hurt the California brand,” said Steven Maviglio, a Democratic political strategist who has formed the group OneCalifornia with GOP strategist Joe Rodota to fight Draper’s plan. "It has zero chance of passage. But what it does is scare investment away... at a time when the Governor is leading us to an economic comeback.”
Draper's plan would split the world’s eighth-largest economy along geographic lines.
One state, to be called Silicon Valley, would include the tech hub along with the San Francisco Bay Area. Jefferson, named after the third U.S. president, would encompass the northernmost region. The state capital of Sacramento would be in North California, while South California would be made up of San Diego and the eastern suburbs of Los Angeles.
L.A. itself would be part of a state called West California.
Proponents say the division would help create a more business-friendly environment, solve the state’s water issues, and ease traffic congestion.
(Editing by Sharon Bernstein and Eric Walsh)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/15/us-usa-california-breakup-idUSKBN0FK03P20140715
Mr Draper, a founder of a Silicon Valley-based venture capital firm that has invested in Twitter, Skype and Tesla, among other companies, has been agitating for months for a ballot initiative to chop the most populous U.S. state into smaller entities.
'It’s important because it will help us create a more responsive, more innovative and more local government, and that ultimately will end up being better for all of Californians,' said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the campaign.
'The idea ... is to create six states with responsive local governments - states that are more representative and accountable to their constituents.
'Salazar said Monday that the campaign had gathered more than the roughly 808,000 signatures needed to place the measure on the November, 2016 ballot.
Draper and other supporters plan to file the signatures with California Secretary of State Debra Bowen on Tuesday.
But the plan has raised bipartisan hackles across the state, and opponents say it stands little chance of gaining voter approval.
If California did vote for the change, it would then be up to the US Congress to authorise the new states' inclusion into the union which opponents say is also unlikely.
'This is a colossal and divisive waste of time, energy, and money that will hurt the California brand,' said Steven Maviglio, a Democratic political strategist who has formed the group OneCalifornia with GOP strategist Joe Rodota to fight Draper’s plan.
'It has zero chance of passage. But what it does is scare investment away... at a time when the Governor is leading us to an economic comeback.
'Draper's plan would split the world’s eighth-largest economy along geographic lines.
One state, to be called Silicon Valley, would include the tech hub along with the San Francisco Bay Area. Jefferson, named after the third U.S. president, would encompass the northernmost region.
The state capital of Sacramento would be in North California, while South California would be made up of San Diego and the eastern suburbs of Los Angeles.L.A. itself would be part of a state called West California.
Were his plan to be implemented Mr Draper, who made his name, and some of his fortune, investing in Skype and Hotmail, would find himself living in the Silicon Valley state as he lives in Atherton - located between San Francisco and San Jose, and ranked number two on Forbes magazine's most expensive zip codes.
Proponents say the division would help create a more business-friendly environment, solve the state’s water issues, and ease traffic congestion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2692747/Could-California-split-six-Billionaire-s-plan-divide-Golden-State-gets-signatures-make-2016-ballot.html
Comments
-
sounds more like keep us away from them ? and spics....we are different than them
-
Seems like a good idea I guess.
-
sounds more like keep us away from them ? and spics....we are different than them
Not to mention our taxes. I think that was most of the motivation
A lot easier to wield influence on their politicians. That silicon valley state would be a huge tax haven for big corporations I bet. They'd. Probably all high tail it there -
I don't see this plan going through though.
-
Never chop Texas up (except when DJ Screw came through...............MAAAAANNNNNNN!)
-
Sounds like they trying to do another Detroit except this will be statewide. According to this video the Billionaire Bankers that Obama 'bailed' out in 2008 were/are the same ones that destroyed it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5gjsRtqivw&feature=youtu.be -
it's stupid.why you wanna divide a whole state into six states?cmon now
-
Well the economy of the World is still not in good shape so maybe they're trying to make larger exclusive communities for the upper middle class and the rich.
-
i'm not sure "why would you ever divide a large state into smaller states" is a real argument against it. after all, it's happened before.MasterJayN100 wrote: »it's stupid.why you wanna divide a whole state into six states?cmon now
-
It should be broken up into 3 States, not 6 (that's too many).
the San Diego area on down (and maybe a little more else somewhere) being called "Old Mexico".
And from that point on up just have Northern California and Southern California.
And then turn the DMV area into "South Washington" with "District City" as the State Capitol. And then give Delaware to Maryland and stretch a little bit of every other State border to just for "re-districting".
And create a new District from the White House to the Pentagon to Capitol Hill called "Western District". An area deliberately dedicated to the Federal Government where no one is allowed to live except the First & Second Families and certain Federal workers
And then officially add Puerto Rico to the U.S.
As you can see I've actually been about this idea for a minute. If we're to strive for a "more perfect union" then in some cases Gerrymandering is okay.
Even the cheapest Mexicans are more expensive than Slavery has been for Blacks. Truth is unless a vicious martial law plan is executed They'll never be able to get that type of clout and resouces ever again. Even Outsourcing Overseas doesn't compare
You need new ideas if They aren't going to go down that route again. That includes New State Boarders and Laws. A place like South Washington and Old Mexico would help micromanage the economy better.
One for Wealth & Education & Power (South Washington). And the other for Boarder purposes and to give back a part of something that once belonged to those people (and the Natives too) - Old Mexico.
It only makes sense. We have to think about our Past. But lets not forget about our Present and our Future either -
Texas>>>Cali
In more ways than one. -
For Old Mexico we could aquire some of that Land on the current Boarder.
And that doesn't mean we kick the already Residents out. It just means that we Secure Our Boarder. Its the cost of Democracy with Good Policy. And it doesn't have to be a huge chunk either but just something extra for Businesses and Security -
They need to keep Cali the way it is.
-
How is a state in a first world country having water issues is my question
-
Gerrymandering is not about making additional politically-appropriate regions, and the only time people cosign it is when they benefit from the schemes it produces. so...MoneyLuver wrote: »As you can see I've actually been about this idea for a minute. If we're to strive for a "more perfect union" then in some cases Gerrymandering is okay.
tragedy of the commons meets AmericansHow is a state in a first world country having water issues is my question
-
Gerrymandering is not about making additional politically-appropriate regions, and the only time people cosign it is when they benefit from the schemes it produces. so...MoneyLuver wrote: »As you can see I've actually been about this idea for a minute. If we're to strive for a "more perfect union" then in some cases Gerrymandering is okay.
tragedy of the commons meets AmericansHow is a state in a first world country having water issues is my question
I'm quite aware of that holms. That's why I said it -
thing is, it seems like you were saying gerrymandering is acceptable under certain circumstances. i would argue that it is never acceptable.MoneyLuver wrote: »I'm quite aware of that holms. That's why I said it
-
thing is, it seems like you were saying gerrymandering is acceptable under certain circumstances. i would argue that it is never acceptable.MoneyLuver wrote: »I'm quite aware of that holms. That's why I said it
Just becuz u could Act & Play A Role as Opposer for Debating Purposes doesn't put Reality on your side.
Gerrymandering in cases like "South Washington" & dividing Cali into 2-3 States is perfectly okay. Gerrymandering is only unacceptable when the purpose of it isn't "for the people".
Gerrymandering is what's needed a little more nowadays. Thing is, lately, the Gerrymandering that's been going on has only been done by the goons of the Republican Party for the sole purposes of winning Elections and not really so much for the people in their District (the old 1 and the new 1).
I know people went thru hell to establish the Now boarder lines but with a little foresight and communication we can do what makes sense. And really its only a handful of States that need to do this, not every State (that'd be a little overkill and unnecessary)
-
uh.. actually, i think the MAJOR problem here is that you don't seem to get what gerrymandering is.MoneyLuver wrote: »Just becuz u could Act & Play A Role as Opposer for Debating Purposes doesn't put Reality on your side.
gerrymandering is NOT creating new districts or states, or dividing old ones. gerrymandering is "a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged district." i have bolded the relevant portion. this is why it is never for the people and it is never okay. and when you say it IS, you're basically saying it is when it suits you. and see this here:
the thing is, Democrats gerrymander too, and for the same reasons. it's not a liberal or conservative thing, it's a partisan thing.MoneyLuver wrote: »Thing is, lately, the Gerrymandering that's been going on has only been done by the goons of the Republican Party for the sole purposes of winning Elections and not really so much for the people in their District (the old 1 and the new 1). -
uh.. actually, i think the MAJOR problem here is that you don't seem to get what gerrymandering is.MoneyLuver wrote: »Just becuz u could Act & Play A Role as Opposer for Debating Purposes doesn't put Reality on your side.
gerrymandering is NOT creating new districts or states, or dividing old ones. gerrymandering is "a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged district." i have bolded the relevant portion. this is why it is never for the people and it is never okay. and when you say it IS, you're basically saying it is when it suits you. and see this here:
the thing is, Democrats gerrymander too, and for the same reasons. it's not a liberal or conservative thing, it's a partisan thing.MoneyLuver wrote: »Thing is, lately, the Gerrymandering that's been going on has only been done by the goons of the Republican Party for the sole purposes of winning Elections and not really so much for the people in their District (the old 1 and the new 1).
And again, when done for the right reasons it can be a good thing.
U have a fear that all Politics are wrong, you're pumping hysteria in your own heart.
And I'm not a Democrat or an Independent or a No-Party ass muthafucka so guess what's left? So u can miss me by coming at me like a Democrat.
Most people aren't Leaders, they need to be led. Gerrymandering (or REDISTRICTING, whatever word u wanna use) is what my area and California need (which is long overdue)
Stop always trying to be the smart guy in the thread. Just spill your 2€ and keep it movin -
except that gerrymandering is never done "for the right reasons." it is ONLY done for partisan benefit. this is where the term came from. it is explicitly NOT the same thing as redistricting, which is why a method of combating gerrymandering is to install bipartisan commissions to handle redistricting in order to eliminate gerrymandering.MoneyLuver wrote: »And again, when done for the right reasons it can be a good thing.
but this is stuff you'd pick up if you spent less time fighting this "GERRYMANDERING IS GREAT" goal and more time reading what i have actually posted.
no, i object to ? politics. you obviously do not.MoneyLuver wrote: »U have a fear that all Politics are wrong, you're pumping hysteria in your own heart.
there is literally NO Republican out there who bashes Republicans for gerrymandering while ignoring the fact that Democrats also gerrymander. so if you're going to make up a story to bolster your post, do a better job.MoneyLuver wrote: »And I'm not a Democrat or an Independent or a No-Party ass muthafucka so guess what's left? So u can miss me by coming at me like a Democrat.
hell of an argument for a government of the people!MoneyLuver wrote: »Most people aren't Leaders, they need to be led.
i'll say it again: gerrymandering and redistricting are NOT the same thing. the former may be a form of the latter, but the latter is not composed of the former.MoneyLuver wrote: »Gerrymandering (or REDISTRICTING, whatever word u wanna use) is what my area and California need (which is long overdue)
spoken like someone who knows his argument is busted and just wants to declare that people can't argue with him. to which i can only say "ahahahahaha." might also help to actually read that Wikipedia link for a bit before complaining about people trying to be the smart guy.MoneyLuver wrote: »Stop always trying to be the smart guy in the thread. Just spill your 2€ and keep it movin
-
except that gerrymandering is never done "for the right reasons." it is ONLY done for partisan benefit. this is where the term came from. it is explicitly NOT the same thing as redistricting, which is why a method of combating gerrymandering is to install bipartisan commissions to handle redistricting in order to eliminate gerrymandering.MoneyLuver wrote: »And again, when done for the right reasons it can be a good thing.
but this is stuff you'd pick up if you spent less time fighting this "GERRYMANDERING IS GREAT" goal and more time reading what i have actually posted.
no, i object to ? politics. you obviously do not.MoneyLuver wrote: »U have a fear that all Politics are wrong, you're pumping hysteria in your own heart.
there is literally NO Republican out there who bashes Republicans for gerrymandering while ignoring the fact that Democrats also gerrymander. so if you're going to make up a story to bolster your post, do a better job.MoneyLuver wrote: »And I'm not a Democrat or an Independent or a No-Party ass muthafucka so guess what's left? So u can miss me by coming at me like a Democrat.
hell of an argument for a government of the people!MoneyLuver wrote: »Most people aren't Leaders, they need to be led.
i'll say it again: gerrymandering and redistricting are NOT the same thing. the former may be a form of the latter, but the latter is not composed of the former.MoneyLuver wrote: »Gerrymandering (or REDISTRICTING, whatever word u wanna use) is what my area and California need (which is long overdue)
spoken like someone who knows his argument is busted and just wants to declare that people can't argue with him. to which i can only say "ahahahahaha." might also help to actually read that Wikipedia link for a bit before complaining about people trying to be the smart guy.MoneyLuver wrote: »Stop always trying to be the smart guy in the thread. Just spill your 2€ and keep it movin
Stopped reading at "except Gerrymandering never..."
Clearly u wanna have a debate about something else. Becuz you're totally acting remedial intentionally.
I'm not taking tha bait Sir -
weird how people come on a public forum geared around, you know, discussions and then act surprised when people discuss things.MoneyLuver wrote: »Stopped reading at "except Gerrymandering never..."
not sure which is the classier move, though, the "can't read posts because they correct my errors in reasoning" or the "won't debate but WILL talk ? ." maybe both!
okay, go back to pretending shady politics are cool when they benefit you but OUTRAGEOUS when they don't.
-
weird how people come on a public forum geared around, you know, discussions and then act surprised when people discuss things.MoneyLuver wrote: »Stopped reading at "except Gerrymandering never..."
not sure which is the classier move, though, the "can't read posts because they correct my errors in reasoning" or the "won't debate but WILL talk ? ." maybe both!
okay, go back to pretending shady politics are cool when they benefit you but OUTRAGEOUS when they don't.
No. You want to discuss your own one sided negative view of something totally left field of tha point I was trying to make.
All the logic and reasoning I was tryna get at was totally ignored for the sake of you trying to control a conversation about something else -
wrong.MoneyLuver wrote: »No. You want to discuss your own one sided negative view of something totally left field of tha point I was trying to make.
All the logic and reasoning I was tryna get at was totally ignored for the sake of you trying to control a conversation about something else
in your very first post in this thread, you tossed out that gerrymandering is a great thing when it works the way you want. i APPARENTLY did the outrageous thing of "disagreeing with you on an internet forum and explaining why."
i mean, it's cool if you don't agree and it's cool if you want to be actively ignorant about what gerrymandering ACTUALLY IS. but since this is entirely relevant to your argument, it's going to get discussed.
also, i don't really feel much sympathy for a claim of "all the logic and reasoning I was tryna get at" when you're willfully ignoring what something you're discussing is.
