Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Groovy and LotusLand have no real sources of water within them. Reagan also will suffer from a water shortage, and this will seriously hamper growth. The Colorado River as a source is already overwithdrawn (especially if the present drought cycle continues).Lower Cascadia and Hillanddale (why not North Sierra and South Sierra?) could make lots of money selling water -- after sating their own thirsts, of course.
I still think my suggestion in the thread yesterday is the best way to go - you just sever what's presently the northern district of California (counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Sonoma) and call that "West California."
I have a bunch of family in Bakersfield, Kern county. Trust me, its more "Hill and Dale", a LOT more that it is like the Peoples Republic of Santa Monica in LotusLand.I also have some doubts about Monterey County, but can live with it in "Hill and Dale" because of all the honest farmers. On second thoughts, if Carmel can elect Clint Eastwood as mayor, there is no need to make them an enclave of "Groovy Land"as for the concept, ain't ever gonna happen. Imagine the day after partition when the Sierra Club goes in front of a Friendy judge in the state of Lower Cascadia and petition for 2 emergency orders to save the Salmon by turning off the California Aqueduct to LA and the Hetch Hetchy Aqeduct to SF. :)
MM beat me but read my book on water in the West from yesterday's post.as for the Names,I like them.and I did make a mistake, the Hetch Hetchy court order would be from a friendly Lower Sierra judge :)
I'm happy to live in the mountains of Reagan. But, I'm thinking that Santa Barbara would declare itself an independent city-state before associating in any way with Los Angeles. Not only is the local culture and pace immensely different, the absolutely fierce building and growth laws would make it impossible to serve as the new state capital. Santa Barbara has the reputation of being Lotusy. But it's much more Hill and Dale at its heart. Move the border of LotusLand south to Ventura, and make Long Beach the new capital.
Where is the state of Denial I've heard so much about?
Groovy and LotusLand have no real sources of water within them. Reagan also will suffer from a water shortage, and this will seriously hamper growth. The Colorado River as a source is already overwithdrawn (especially if the present drought cycle continues).Good!!! Then they can negotiate with Lower Cascadia for the resources that they have been stealing from us for years. They can also then butt out of our business and stop micromanaging our lives.
DBQ and I see eye to eye again as we did i the other post.water, water, wateras a resident, do you like Lower Cascadia and Hillanddale better? or MM's Northern Sierra and Southern Sierra (my vote here)
MM, know you are in the academic science business, but I did't expect a guy from Madison with all those great lakes around to understand the driving factors in the West.what field are you in?
Dividing California into five states is a great idea but don’t forget to plan ahead.If the Golden State is too big a first bite, you might want to practice on New Jersey first.
If the Golden State is too big a first bite, you might want to practice on New Jersey first.How about Illinois instead? Please! Split off Cook County (or just Chicago) from the rest of the state - ahh - that would be so nice for those those of us that don't live there but are stuck with their hold on Illinois.
Al - Illinois' problems aren't Chicago so much as they are Reynolds v. Simms.
Groovy and LotusLand have no real sources of water within them.Three words.Nuclear Desalinization plants.It's been successful in quite a few other countries without problems, you also get some bonus power for the electrical grid. No more worry about those evil Texans driving up prices. You could create 5 mile buffer zones around each plant where housing would be controlled and affordable but with guaranteed reduced cost health insurance, free household water, and lifetime leases.
Who gets Arnold?
Simon said... Al - Illinois' problems aren't Chicago so much as they are Reynolds v. Simms.Found a couple of interesting wrap ups on this decision. One quote that jumped out at me (and has turned out to be true) was from Senator Everett Dirksen:"the forces of our national life are not brought to bear on public questions solely in proportion to the weight of numbers. If they were, the 6 million citizens of the Chicago area would hold sway in the Illinois Legislature without consideration of the problems of their 4 million fellows who are scattered in 100 other counties"So while I can't blame Chicago they have certainly taken advantage of the situation.
This has been proposed with Texas. State Sen. Maury Maverick wanted a Protestant north which would be dry and no gambling and a Catholic south which would have liquor by the drink and horse racing.And later there was a proposal to split into five states (Texas admission to the Union guarantees that it can split into up to five states, all of which are entitled to statehood) since that would create a block of ten US senators controlled by the oil industry (who do you think promoted this idea?) which would then be able to rule the entire country's energy policy.
Al - Justice Brennan regarded the reapportionment decisions - Baker, Reynolds, and their progeny - as is proudest accomplishments. I'd say they were emblematic of what was wrong with the Warren Court, myself. There's probably a good argument that maybe some federal entity ought to be able to check state legislative boundaries to prevent gross malapportionment by state legislatures, but there's nothing in the Constitution of the United States - express or implied - conferring that kind of authority on the federal government generally, still less the federal courts specifically. And whatever the normative argument for such might be, the consequence has been to make states like Illinois the fiefdom of their superurban potentate.
After absorbing the many comments here and at my blog (thanks folks, and thank you Prof. Althouse for creating a post linking my scheme), I've decided that a five state solution is good, but a six state solution would be better.Major changes would be LA county gets to be a state all by its lonesome. The central coast counties become their own state. Kern county is shifted to the Central Valley states where it belongs (I know they belong there more than with LA, but I was seduced by that straight line across the map when thinking about the possible divisions).I think these are pretty sensible suggestions and would increase the representation and responsiveness of politicians to their specific constituencies within the boundaries of each of these states.But I haven't a clue as to the processes involved in splitting up a state, and suspect that it is close to impossible given current political conditions.
LA county gets to be a state all by its lonesome.La La Land?
She said: "He had me at oink."
It would make a lot more sense to keep all of the central valley area in one state. Since the Sierras aren't viable by themselves, put the central valley and the Sierras in one state. Call it the Water Owner State.SF Bay area is a state--Moonbatistan. Or maybe call it Fabulous!, exclamation point not optional. Put SoCal into a state with the dividing line somewhere in the wilds of Big Sur. The NorCal coast and far north probably gets thrown in with the central valley. I'm not sure what the political breakdown would be. Fabulous! would be heavily Democratic. I think the Water Owners would trend Republican, but the recent demographic changes might not make that true. SoCal would probably trend Democratic, as West LA would offset San Diego, and in any event see recent demographic changes.California is really to big to be effectivel governed as a state as it stands now.
Who would get Arnold?How about who would get Prop 13? It's the only thing that makes it possible to live here.
I like using famous names of Californians - that's a nice touch in the revamped version. However, I think the capital of the Muir (Central Valley) state has to be Fresno, which is about five times larger than Merced and has a metro area probably seven times larger. Fresno is also in the center of that new state. As an alternate name, Saroyan would also work. And if the central coast counties are included, then the state should definitely be Steinbeck, who wrote about both areas.
All I know is even though we'll be h2o challenged (nothing new there), I'm glad I'm in Reagan and not (cringe) in 'Groovy'.
Fresno's water shortage is a set-up FARCE!The evidence is behind the lies and altered records. Check out www.myspace.com/marlalk2 (MySpace requires free registration)Or check out some of these:http://cellulitisinfresno.googlepages.com/home (this one has accompanying blogs)http://watershortageinfresnoca.blogspot.com/http://operationrezone.blogspot.com/http://fresnorealestatefraudtheft.blogspot.com/http://waterinfresnoca.blogspot.com/http://pesticidesinfresnoca.blogspot.com/http://fresnosanitaryseweroverflows.blogspot.com/(I was employed by the man behind 45 yrs of secretly altering sewer/water lines in preparation for the current tie-ins during the citywide "infrastructure upgrade." He is a former employee of the City of Fresno. Linked to development beyond Friant. Problem is, I did not realize what he was doing until he and the city risk analyst were caught in action! You will NOT get any help or answers from the City - the ones who are not involved are looking at altered records.)
Post a Comment