Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bay Area as a City State

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Bay Area as a City State

#21

Post by russell »

baguasquirrel wrote: post #18
russell wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Residential users use about 10% of the water, last time I looked. Larger users are alpha, hay, and rice. So if we ban growing rice in the desert, we will have plenty for the people. CA rice is probably for export, because it is the shor grain variety, not the long grain that most of us eat.

That is true, but what parent is alluding to is that the rest of California would have a monopoly on our water supply. The real demand matters little when said demand is inelastic and only one guy controls it. This is probably the one biggest reason why nation-states exist as they do today. The sum of the parts is less than the whole. This leads to some interesting ideas. What if societies go through downturns (and e…

Actually not. San Francisco, and East Bay MUD which supply much of the SF Peninsula and the East Bay both own their own Sierra dams and infrastructure. I dont think a hostage situation would ensue.

Re: Bay Area as a City State

#22

Post by tmsh »

krevis wrote: post #20
tmsh wrote: post #10

Google is incorporated in Delaware. Apple (through Braeburn Capital since the mid-2000s) manages most of its assets in Nevada. They're not paying state corporate income taxes to anyone, let alone California. Perhaps they're not using any of the services that California state taxes provide. But it's sort of a complicated argument. The state has a long history. Perhaps this article is a good way to break the deadlock.…

Apple was, and is, incorporated in California. Perhaps you're thinking of Braeburn Capital, their cash-management subsidiary which they (relatively recently) created in Nevada.

Good point. Updated.

Re: Bay Area as a City State

#23

Post by chengas123 »

russell wrote: post #2

Thank god this wont happen. I live just north of San Luis Obispo and would be left with the same old mess. Better would be to fix the mess in Sacramento. A new governor with a more pragmatic outlook, Jerry Brown, passing the initiative to remove the budget supermajority would be a good start.

I'm not so sure it'd be that bad. California would get a greater voice in the Senate and thus receive back more of the tax dollars we pay federally (we currently receive far less than we payout with a sizable portion of our funds going to other states). And I have to imagine state politics would be simplified by making the state smaller.

Re: Bay Area as a City State

#24

Post by sstrudeau »

This reminds me of one of my unexpected favorite reads: Jane Jacob's "Cities & the Wealth of Nations" http://www.amazon.com/Cities-Wealth-Nations-Jane-Jacobs/dp/0...

She argues that cities (more specifically, city-regions) are the most fundamental economic unit, and many of the problems that national economies encounter are a result of an imbalance created by tying together multiple city-region economies; and tying them together (and together with large rural areas) creates political problems (because their interests do not align). She also points to cities like Singapore & Hong Kong to show how separating a city-region politically and economically from other city-regions, and decoupling large, rural areas allows for optimal economic conditions for cities. She's not a trained economist, but as a city resident, her argument resonated pretty strongly with me -- though, as a practical matter, well, not at all practical.

Re: Bay Area as a City State

#25

Post by jorgeortiz85 »

thingie wrote: post #14
waterlesscloud wrote: post #12

Of course a bay area city state would vote to spend no money on the military industrial complex, and then an orange county city state would invade and conquer them.

Well, it seems that Singapore, as a model city state in that article, has much stronger military forces than many much larger and more populated countries.

I think waterlesscloud was alluding to the political preferences of Bay Area residents.

Re: Bay Area as a City State

#26

Post by travisp »

tmsh wrote: post #10

Google is incorporated in Delaware. Apple (through Braeburn Capital since the mid-2000s) manages most of its assets in Nevada. They're not paying state corporate income taxes to anyone, let alone California. Perhaps they're not using any of the services that California state taxes provide. But it's sort of a complicated argument. The state has a long history. Perhaps this article is a good way to break the deadlock.…

"Google is incorporated in Delaware. Apple (through Braeburn Capital since the mid-2000s) manages most of its assets in Nevada. They're not paying state corporate income taxes to anyone, let alone California. "

I don't think this is entirely correct as it's a misconception about what it means to incorporate in Delaware. Foreign companies operating in California (and other states) pay taxes there.

There are ways to use Delaware and Nevada to pay less in state taxes, but simply being incorporated there is not one of them, and they are still definitely paying state taxes to Georgia.

Re: Bay Area as a City State

#27

Post by natrius »

ant5 wrote: post #3

Residents pay taxes to the feds and the state, some of that money trickles back down to the state, and some of that money trickles back down to the city. Wake me up when we can pay taxes to our city-states, and some of that money trickles up to the state, and some of that money trickles up to the feds.

The federal government was funded by the states under the Articles of Confederation. The states didn't give enough money to fund the government, so they got rid of it and created a federal government that could collect its own taxes.

Federalism works when when the governmental bodies involved function within the boundaries of the rules that have been set out for them via, for instance, a constitution. This rarely happens. It's still better than the alternatives.

Re: Bay Area as a City State

#28

Post by natrius »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #12

Of course a bay area city state would vote to spend no money on the military industrial complex, and then an orange county city state would invade and conquer them.

Self-defense is cheap. Iraqis and Afghans seem to find a way to do a pretty impressive job without throwing buckets of money at the problem. (There's probably some significant outside funding in each case, but still.)

Re: Bay Area as a City State

#29

Post by natrius »

krakensden wrote: post #6
ImFatYoureFat wrote: post #4

"In an age when nations have become so large that their citizens no longer identify with distant governments..." What? it would seem like the complete opposite of this is true. I would say that nationalism and national identity, in the US and most other places in the world, is stronger now than it has been in the past 50 years.

Indeed. Honestly that seems like the biggest problem with the plan- most local politicians and representatives are complete nobodies, they get elected by riding the coattails of presidential and maybe the senatorial elections.

That's because the media doesn't do a good job of informing people about what state and local politicians actually do. Luckily, there's a way to fix that. At the Texas Tribune, we're aiming to solve that problem, and there are similar California-based organizations.

http://californiawatch.org/

http://www.baycitizen.org/

Re: Bay Area as a City State

#30

Post by russell »

ant5 wrote: post #19
russell wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would love CA then, where the state seizes local taxes to pay state bills and the republicans rant on about lowering taxes. The cities are feeling the pinch and have to cut local services.

That's not at all what I said I wanted :) I want trickle-up instead of trickle-down taxes, ie, the city controls the purse strings instead of the federal and state governments.

I know. I was being deliberately obtuse. Imperial China had what you were talking about and it was institutionalized corruption.
Post reply on HN