What to Do About California's Being Too Damn Big
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:20 am
The obvious, and perhaps the only, solution to the problem of California's absurdly outsized relationship to the rest of the country is to split California. Thus, the question becomes: Split it how?
One alternative is to split it along a north-south line between the inland counties and the coastal counties, thereby creating East California and West California. The question which immediately arises is what to do with the five counties which abut the San Francisco Bay but not the Pacific Ocean. We could treat them as inland counties on the ground that they do not abut the Pacific Ocean. Or we could treat them as coastal counties on the ground that they abut what has been known for centuries as "an immense arm of the sea".
If we treat those five counties as inland counties, then splitting California into East California and West California is a bad idea for at least three reasons.
First, the primary appeal of the East-West California split is political: The coastal counties tend to be more progressive than the inland counties. But if we include the five counties which abut the San Francisco Bay but not the Pacific Ocean, that political difference largely evaporates. Those five counties -- Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, and Solano -- range from the progressive to the very progressive.
Second, if we consider the counties which abut the San Francisco Bay but not the Pacific Ocean, it follows that East California would be landlocked. Yes, many States are landlocked, but I see no reason to create another one, especially one that would be within "spitting distance" of the largest ocean on the planet.
Third, we would be tearing one of California's main population centers (the Bay Area) apart and combining a big chunk of it -- the counties which abut the Pacific Ocean -- with most of California's other main population center (the Los Angeles area). The entire Bay Area is smaller (yet again, population-wise) than the Los Angeles area, so combining a big chunk of the Bay Area would undermine the purpose of elminating, or at least reducing, the California-is-too-damn-big problem.
On the other hand, we could treat the five counties which abut the San Francisco Bay -- the "immense arm of the sea" -- but not the Pacific Ocean as coastal counties. In that case, splitting California into East California, comprising the inland counties, and West California, comprising the coastal counties, would be a bad idea for at least three reasons.
First, East California would not include either of California's main population centers -- the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area -- and West California would include both of them, so West California would still be a population behemoth. That rather defeats the purpose of splitting California because it is too damn big.
Second, East California would be landlocked. See above.
Third -- and this may well be the most important -- splitting California between the coastal counties and the inland counties would be an economic disaster for East California. It would be rather like creating another Connecticut and another Mississippi.
Of California's 37 inland counties, almost two thirds (24; 64.9%) have more people living below the poverty line than the statewide average. And almost two thirds (24 -- but not quite the same 24 -- 64.9%) have more families with median incomes below the statewide average.
A new State which would include neither of California's main population centers, which would be landlocked, and which would would comprise counties with disproportionate numbers of people living below the poverty line and families with below average median incomes: East California just makes no sense, so splitting California into East California and West California makes no sense.
One alternative is to split it along a north-south line between the inland counties and the coastal counties, thereby creating East California and West California. The question which immediately arises is what to do with the five counties which abut the San Francisco Bay but not the Pacific Ocean. We could treat them as inland counties on the ground that they do not abut the Pacific Ocean. Or we could treat them as coastal counties on the ground that they abut what has been known for centuries as "an immense arm of the sea".
If we treat those five counties as inland counties, then splitting California into East California and West California is a bad idea for at least three reasons.
First, the primary appeal of the East-West California split is political: The coastal counties tend to be more progressive than the inland counties. But if we include the five counties which abut the San Francisco Bay but not the Pacific Ocean, that political difference largely evaporates. Those five counties -- Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, and Solano -- range from the progressive to the very progressive.
Second, if we consider the counties which abut the San Francisco Bay but not the Pacific Ocean, it follows that East California would be landlocked. Yes, many States are landlocked, but I see no reason to create another one, especially one that would be within "spitting distance" of the largest ocean on the planet.
Third, we would be tearing one of California's main population centers (the Bay Area) apart and combining a big chunk of it -- the counties which abut the Pacific Ocean -- with most of California's other main population center (the Los Angeles area). The entire Bay Area is smaller (yet again, population-wise) than the Los Angeles area, so combining a big chunk of the Bay Area would undermine the purpose of elminating, or at least reducing, the California-is-too-damn-big problem.
On the other hand, we could treat the five counties which abut the San Francisco Bay -- the "immense arm of the sea" -- but not the Pacific Ocean as coastal counties. In that case, splitting California into East California, comprising the inland counties, and West California, comprising the coastal counties, would be a bad idea for at least three reasons.
First, East California would not include either of California's main population centers -- the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area -- and West California would include both of them, so West California would still be a population behemoth. That rather defeats the purpose of splitting California because it is too damn big.
Second, East California would be landlocked. See above.
Third -- and this may well be the most important -- splitting California between the coastal counties and the inland counties would be an economic disaster for East California. It would be rather like creating another Connecticut and another Mississippi.
Of California's 37 inland counties, almost two thirds (24; 64.9%) have more people living below the poverty line than the statewide average. And almost two thirds (24 -- but not quite the same 24 -- 64.9%) have more families with median incomes below the statewide average.
A new State which would include neither of California's main population centers, which would be landlocked, and which would would comprise counties with disproportionate numbers of people living below the poverty line and families with below average median incomes: East California just makes no sense, so splitting California into East California and West California makes no sense.
