(TechCrunch/Todd Trumbull/The Chornicle)
Draper's initiative is a prime example of 'devolution,' as the split would divide the government of the most populous state in the country into smaller geographic areas. However, public opinion remains critical. After the proposed plan went viral this year, several news sites critiqued the plan's apparent absurdity. Others lauded it as an attempt to split the wealthy areas of the state from the poorers ones, allowing rich places like Silicon Valley to make off with most of the benefits.
What do you think of this plan? What does this proposal mean for the nature of federalism?
What do you think of this plan? What does this proposal mean for the nature of federalism?
4 comments:
I think the whole idea of splitting California into six states will just turn into a mess. The first problem with splitting California into six states is each new state's economy. Each state's economy would be different, with the Silicon Valley having the strongest economy because it includes San Francisco and San Jose. Judging from how California would be divided, the state of Central California seems like it would have one of the weaker economies out of the new states, considering that there is a fair amount of agricultural activity there. The article "Signature Gathering Can Begin for Six-Way Split of California" says that "Some believe [Draper] wants tax revenues generated by new companies to be put back in high-tech development rather than going to central valley farmers for instance." So not only would Draper's six Californias plan deprive farmers of financial assistance, it would also deprive people of a source of food. Another problem that is more relevant to us as students is the issue of California public colleges, the UC system, and the CSU system. If California were to be split into six states, the UC and CSU systems would be destroyed, and other public California colleges would cost more to go to (depending on where it would be). Suppose a student lives in the Silicon Valley state, but they want to go to a school in West California. Since out-of-state tuition is higher than it is for students within that state, a student could end up paying to go to school for more than they did if California were to be split up into six states. Do you really want to pay more to go to school under Draper's plan?
According to "Signature Gathering Can Begin for Six-Way Split of California," "[Draper] says the state is too large to govern efficiently and that residents don’t have a responsive government." Coming from that point of view, it's understandable why six Californias could be a good thing. But one needs to consider the consequences of splitting up California. I think the six Californias proposal is an attempt at trying to give back more power to the states. This plan is letting California do what it wants, which has already been attempted in the past many times (see "Upstate, downstate" ).
I agree with Angelia's comment but I also think that a really important issue in this debate is how this would affect the splitting of water resources. As we are all gravely aware, California is in and has been in for the past few years, a very severe drought. A large portion of our water is in northern and central California (think snowmelt from the Sierra's) and thus splitting California into six different states would not only ruin economies but it would leave certain areas, specifically southern and western California with no water. No water means no life and big big problems for those new states.
Supposing that Southern and Western California would be able to buy water from other states, this plan is still not really worth carrying out, in my opinion. As Angelia stated, the whole economic and social system of California would crumble for a political system. It is not profitable for Jefferson and Central California to loose the profits of Silicon Valley. Even if California were to be divided, it should not be as many as 6, with Silicon Valley and West California holding the most wealth.
California cannot split into six states because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution explicitly says in Article IV Section 3, “no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State.” Not only is it not a good idea because of the economy and drought, but it is simply and clearly illegal.
Post a Comment