Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it's Oregon's problem, then let it stay in Oregon!
Dividing Oregon would be easier than trying to attach half the state to Idaho.
Division has already been done once before, when West Virginia was created from the western half of Virginia.
In this day and age I think dividing Oregon would be much more difficult, and probably impossible. Creating a 51st state would add two senators and two electoral votes to the current totals. That has political ramifications at the national level that make it impractical if not impossible.
There is at least one other similar initiative involving parts of Illinois wanting to join Indiana, and they are following the same strategy of shifting state boundaries as opposed to creating new states.
Thanks for that link, NW...
It was interesting to find this is the 4th time Idaho has been planned to be split apart. But
The first was in the late 1860s! It was to be title the Territory of Columbia. The second came in the early 20th century when E. Washington was to be joined to N. Idaho to beome the new State of Lincoln.
It makes me wonder what we would be called now....
I don't believe there is any plan to split Idaho into more than one state ...
I met my wife in La Grande many years ago, and the in-laws lived outside of Elgin until the early 2000s. We still have friends in the area that we visit once or twice a year. None of them want to join Idaho. Yes, they complain about Salem and the Willamette Valley running the state, but Oregon is their state and home. None of these people have ever paid sales tax except when shopping out of state, and they all strongly don't want to pay any sales tax on anything!! If there was a bigger turnout on future elections I think the votes wouldn't be so positive for joining Idaho.
Since states can not print money, it's almost always more important to look at spending as opposed to any particular form of taxation. Oregon is getting that $9.6k per capita somehow. If it isn't via a sales tax, it's in some other form of taxation (income, property, corporate, other fees, etc.). There may be individual circumstances where it's more favorable to be in a state that gets it's money thru one form of taxation vs. another, but usually spending will be a better indicator of the total state and local tax burden on residents. That's almost assuredly going to be the case when the spending is different by almost a factor of 2X.
BTW, as a corollary to the spending data above, the current subsidy of eastern OR by western OR is a direct result of Oregon's spending decisions. Since those would all be different should those counties become part of Idaho it's not a valid assumption that Idaho would need to cover the costs of the current west to east subsidy in Oregon. I am not suggesting their would not be costs, only that a deeper analysis is required to understand all the facts that would determine what those costs would be, if any.
Interesting results so far on this poll. I added the Undecided/Don't care options to try and gauge those less likely to engage on the matter, and this group makes up around 25%, which is more than the Yes group with a little over 20%. Whereas more than 50% are in the No group.
Of course, this isn't scientific so who knows what, if anything, it means.
Agriculturally YES but what comes with Oregon's real problems NO... such as the drug problem, including regulated pot and the welfare status of too many people. Taxes to support that will cost us a fortune.
The Oregonians will be no boon to Idaho's agriculture at all.
The fact is both regions are very much the same. If one side of the border is poor land, unfit for farming, it's the same on the other side of the border.
And when it comes to soil, only the best soil in this state is farmland. The poor soil constitutes ranch land. Farmers make more money than ranchers. If a ranch in Oregon fails, it will fail as part of Greater Idaho. The name makes no difference.
What would make a huge difference to the way of life here in Idaho, however, is the 380,000 chronically unhappy new voters who would suddenly appear on our voting rolls. They're like adding a city the size of Boise onto our state, and they will be electing those folks to represent them in our government.
With enough of a majority in their unity that our state government will swell to a much larger body than it is now, and one they could seize control over with their numbers.
In that aspect, this bunch of folks is only the tip of the spear. If E. Oregon is attatched to Idaho, all it will accomplish is moving the border much closer to W. Oregon, the seat of Oregon's problems. Every unhappy person who lives in Portland region would only need to move a few miles east, and Bingo! He's in Idaho now!
If you think drugs are a problem that's coming from Ontario, the little Oregon town that's the closest to our border now, try to imagine what the amount of drugs, street people, crime, and general trouble like thievery, would be coming from Portland, which would be the city next door instead.
Not a little city like Ontario; a BIG city, much bigger than Boise, that is is much deeper trouble than Boise constantly.
Try to imagine how easy all the unrest that's been constrained to the coast could spread inland.
Into Greater Idaho. And then, a hop and a skip into Idaho proper.
No one who's doing well in Portland would want to move eastward.
Idaho would be getting all their trash and troubles. Oregon would be happy to see them go, and we are totally unprepared for that bitter flood here.
Those 380,000 new Idahoans could become the hole that broke the dam. Imagine what we would be like 2 years afterward, with 750,000 more new Idahoans leaving Oregon.
Remember that those folks in the eastern counties are not the only ones who don't like the way Oregon does things. There are thousands more of them living in the big coastal cities who would join them if it was easy to do.
...and you guys know me. I'm not anti-growth. This is too much growth, coming way too fast.
Last edited by banjomike; 03-08-2023 at 09:29 PM..
This proposition is going to be heard in our legislature tomorrow, March 9.
I urge everyone here to write or call your Representative and voice your opinions.
They really need to know what we think about this before it goes any farther.
I dropped my Representative an email this afternoon.
I'm only a part-time Idahoan, so I haven't voted or weighed in, but I find the issue very interesting. I found a link on the Idaho Legislature website to the Idaho in Session PBS website that streams Senate meetings: https://www.idahoptv.org/shows/idahoinsession/senate/
The meeting begins today, March 9, at 11 am MT/10 am PT. No information about the topic, but according to Mike's information, this is it!
I'm only a part-time Idahoan, so I haven't voted or weighed in, but I find the issue very interesting. I found a link on the Idaho Legislature website to the Idaho in Session PBS website that streams Senate meetings: https://www.idahoptv.org/shows/idahoinsession/senate/
The meeting begins today, March 9, at 11 am MT/10 am PT. No information about the topic, but according to Mike's information, this is it!
You own property here, so please send an email if you want to, and include the address of your property.
I never took this issue very seriously until just a few days ago. After I really studied the movement's plans, I realized how much this would affect every Idahoan's life if it happens.
And it's exactly the kind of nonsensical issue that is 'cute' enough that it could slide into something official by sliding it in under a closed door.
Our state legislature likes this kind of stuff as a diversion sometimes, and that makes passage more possible than I first thought.
Thanks, Mike, I feel more like an Idahoan now! I thought it was a bunch of hot air, too, but it seems to have legs. I tried to listen to the streaming Senate meeting, but they went through so many different issues, and I didn't have time to follow it, but I'm sure there will be something in The Statesman tomorrow.
In any event, nothing is going to happen without a federal approval.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought it was a bunch of hot air, too, but it seems to have legs. I tried to listen to the streaming Senate meeting, but they went through so many different issues, and I didn't have time to follow it, but I'm sure there will be something in The Statesman tomorrow.
