"Six Californias"

[a_majoor]

A strange idea has actually passed a major hurdle: a proposal to break California into six smaller states received enough signatures on a petition to begin moving forward in the political process. While the actual probability of this happening is very low it represents a way of getting a clear slate and doing things differently. Reading the comments is also quite illuminating:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/07/six-californias-appears-to-have.html#more

Six Californias appears to have submitted enough signatures to get on the 2016 ballot

Supporters of an initiative to divide California into six states say they submitted 1.3 million signatures in counties across the state Tuesday.

The petition needed approximately 808,000 signatures of registered California voters to qualify for the November 2016 statewide ballot. The Secretary of State will determine whether there are enough valid signatures.

“Six Californias gives us an opportunity to reboot and refresh our state government,” said Timothy Draper, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist behind the effort.

Under the proposal, West California would consist of Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. South California would include Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Bernardino and Imperial counties. Other states would be Jefferson (consisting of the northernmost counties), Silicon Valley, Central California and North California.

The initiative faces major obstacles, including a skeptical public and political questions. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a Field Poll in February found 59 percent of Californians opposed the idea. U.S. Congress would need to approve the new states, and most observers say that is highly unlikely.

The proposal allows a county along one of the proposed new state borders to join an adjacent state instead, subject to the approval of both that county's voters (via a country ballot measure) and its Boards of Supervisors by November 15, 2017.

A board of 24 commissioners would also be appointed to negotiate how to divide California's existing assets and liabilities among the new states. The initiative also explicitly states that the Governor of California will be required to submit the state-splitting proposal to Congress by January 1, 2018.

In addition, California's charter counties would be allowed more power over municipal affairs that currently may be controlled by city governments. This change is meant for the interim period between the passing of the initiative and congressional approval of the new states, but will remain in place even if Congress eventually does not pass the state-splitting proposal.

In final section of the initiative, "the official proponent of the initiative" (Draper) is appointed as an "Agent of the State of California" for the purpose of defending the proposal against legal challenges.

 

[ArmyRick]

Is this for real? That would be major American history to witness it.

 

[Remius]

This: According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a Field Poll in February found 59 percent of Californians opposed the idea. U.S. Congress would need to approve the new states, and most observers say that is highly unlikely.

Congress can barely agree on the debt ceiling and budget, I doubt they could agree on this either.

 

[a_majoor]

California is pretty dysfunctional as it is right now (cities and towns routinely go bankrupt there, as an example), so there is a pretty significant portion of the population that wants some sort of change. If Quebec separatists had 40% support of the population there would be a general sense of panic in Canada (and the fact that the CPC has edged to the 40% of support by the electorate has generated panic among the "Laurentian elites" every time it happens)

I agree that the proposed "solution" is unlikely at best, but the fact that there is enough support to put the proposition on the ballot is a sign that real change is indeed desired.

What form this change will actually take is something to ponder...

 

[The_Falcon]

After they recalled Davis, and elected Arnold...twice, I am not surprised by this at all.  2 of the Americans I worked with, were from California, and their favourite topic was how absolutely insane that state is on a number issues.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

 

[a_majoor]

California continues to create a sense of community and encourages people to do their part during the water shortage </sarc>:

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/the-lawn-wars-california-residents-shamed-for-wasting-and-conserving-water/32287/

The lawn wars: California residents shamed for wasting and conserving water

Cheryl Santa Maria
Digital Reporter
Tuesday, July 22, 2014, 5:55 - This year's drought season has sparked some peculiar behaviour in California. One couple was fined for trying to save water, while others are publicly shaming their neighbours for wasting it.

Laura Whitney and Michael Korte of Glendora, California are facing a fine of up to $500 for the brown grass on their property.

The couple says they had stopped watering their lawn in an effort to conserve water.

That was until they received a letter from the city informing them they have 60 days to tend to their lawn before they'll be forced to pay the fine.

The warning came on the same day that mandatory water restrictions went into effect.

RELATED: Five maps that show how dire the U.S. drought situation really is

“Despite the water conservation efforts, we wish to remind you that limited watering is still required to keep landscaping looking healthy and green,” the letter reads, according to Reuters.

More than 80 percent of the state of California is experiencing extreme drought conditions -- and that has prompted a new, local craze called "drought shaming."

Residents caught wasting water can face $500 fines as well.

Some communities have set up tattle-tale hotlines and, according to local media, they're seeing a spike in drought shaming calls.

In Sacramento, authorities say they've received 10,000 such calls so far.

With this sort of schizophrenic response by government officials, Californians are really ruled by the whims of bureaucrats rather than the "Rule of Law".

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Oh no. They are ruled by the "rule-of-law". Unfortunately, only one law: You are legally restrained from taxing the people to provide that, which they otherwise voted to provide through government.

Now, whether you like "big" or "small" government, is an insane situation.

 

[PMedMoe]

5 Previous Attempts To Split Up California

 

[a_majoor]

Oh no. They are ruled by the "rule-of-law". Unfortunately, only one law: You are legally restrained from taxing the people to provide that, which they otherwise voted to provide through government.

Now, whether you like "big" or "small" government, is an insane situation.

Actually Californians are mostly ruled through 550+ quasi government agencies which have the power to pass and enforce regulations without legislative oversight (i.e. the regulations have the power of law when passed), and these agencies are the domain of petty bureaucrats and California politicians who have finished their term limits and now exist in a cushy taxpayer funded "job".

Oddly, the only jurisdiction that I know of which has more named agencies is......Ontario.....