Should Washington state split into two states? (Seattle, Spokane: income, sales tax)

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by Haakon

Split WA and OR, let the coastal liberal nuts form their own state.

Join Idaho, or nothing.

[CrazyDonkey]

https://www.tri-cityherald.com/opini...222687165.html

[pnwguy2]

Thank you for posting that CrazyDonkey. As I have posted above, the two sides are complimentary to each other and need each other. Those trying to split don't understand this basic economic fact. They tend to be very narrow-issued (the gun issue is one, but on others not so much), and tend to put politics ahead of economic reality.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

Thank you for posting that CrazyDonkey. As I have posted above, the two sides are complimentary to each other and need each other. Those trying to split don't understand this basic economic fact. They tend to be very narrow-issued (the gun issue is one, but on others not so much), and tend to put politics ahead of economic reality.

I'm not necessarily a proponent of splitting the state, but all you guys saying that Eastern WA would shrivel-up and die without Western WA have still never explained why we couldn't just model Eastern WA after a state like Wyoming.

Wyoming has a smaller central population hub than Spokane, has less exportable resources than Eastern WA (we have hydropower, for example), and has few large corporations to contribute taxes, but yet they weathered the Great Recession just as well or better than Washington did.

Why couldn't we be like Wyoming?

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by PS90

I'm not necessarily a proponent of splitting the state, but all you guys saying that Eastern WA would shrivel-up and die without Western WA have still never explained why we couldn't just model Eastern WA after a state like Wyoming.

Wyoming has a smaller central population hub than Spokane, has less exportable resources than Eastern WA (we have hydropower, for example), and has few large corporations to contribute taxes, but yet they weathered the Great Recession just as well or better than Washington did.

Why couldn't we be like Wyoming?

Why would you want to be like Wyoming? It has more cattle and sheep than people.

Population (2010 census):

Western Washington: 5,229,486 (211.36/sq-mi
Eastern Washington: 1,495,054 (32.07/sq-mi)
Wyoming: 563,626 (5.97/sq-mi) (Cattle, 1,290,000; sheep, 345,000)

[509]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Why would you want to be like Wyoming? It has more cattle and sheep than people.

Cattle and sheep are better neighbors than coasties.

[PS90]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Why would you want to be like Wyoming? It has more cattle and sheep than people.

Population (2010 census):

Western Washington: 5,229,486 (211.36/sq-mi
Eastern Washington: 1,495,054 (32.07/sq-mi)
Wyoming: 563,626 (5.97/sq-mi) (Cattle, 1,290,000; sheep, 345,000)

Seriously?

See, this is part of the reason that many people want this split. You mentioning the number of livestock, like it's somehow a bad thing, just highlights our differences. There is becoming such a divide in the basic lifestyle between East and West that it's becoming untenable.

People from Western WA want progress, and people on top of people, and rat race, and bigger salaries, and job promotions, and to live on concrete and glass.

Many of us over here on the uncivilized side are perfectly content with a slower pace of life, and nature, and the lack of progress and - gasp - even living around livestock. Some of us even make a career out of livestock.

[st33lcas3]

Originally Posted by Carlyee3

Actually, I think, the Seattle road system sucks $$ out of the rural areas like Spokane and Yakima. Depending on what data you use, I think it isn't as you say for other items. I bet Eastern WA would love to have autonomous control over their taxes and getting rid of the liberal laws passed by the west side.

The Spokane North South Freeway is a great example. Spokane has needed a N-S freeway for decades. They finally started building it in 2001, but funding lapses have caused construction to slow to a crawl.

OTOH, Seattle decided it needed a tunnel downtown to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct in order to alleviate congestion and replace the aging freeway. They got the funding quickly $2.8 billion or so. Of course it missed it's completion time by four years and a couple hundred millions is cost overruns. From what I understand it's due to open next February.
That was for a two mile stretch. Spokane still has miles of freeway to build and received around $800 million in financing from the state.
Funny thing is both of the projects originally cost over $2 billion, but Spokane's funding comes in spurts. Construction of the remaining N-S freeway in Spokane is slated for 2029.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by PS90

Seriously?

See, this is part of the reason that many people want this split. You mentioning the number of livestock, like it's somehow a bad thing, just highlights our differences. There is becoming such a divide in the basic lifestyle between East and West that it's becoming untenable.

People from Western WA want progress, and people on top of people, and rat race, and bigger salaries, and job promotions, and to live on concrete and glass.

Many of us over here on the uncivilized side are perfectly content with a slower pace of life, and nature, and the lack of progress and - gasp - even living around livestock. Some of us even make a career out of livestock.

The difference you're painting isn't as extreme as you're contending. Ultimately, east or west, people want jobs, opportunity, good schools, affordable housing, safety, activities, etc.

Eastern Washington has almost three times the population and over five times the density of Wyoming. Why would you want to step down? A "slower pace of life" and "lack of progress" is fine, until you have to live in it. If "ranch living" is what you want, move there.

Wyoming has been desperately trying to sell its coal to China, but hasn't been able to find a NW port willing to ship it.

[pnwguy2]

Originally Posted by st33lcas3

The Spokane North South Freeway is a great example. Spokane has needed a N-S freeway for decades. They finally started building it in 2001, but funding lapses have caused construction to slow to a crawl.

OTOH, Seattle decided it needed a tunnel downtown to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct in order to alleviate congestion and replace the aging freeway. They got the funding quickly $2.8 billion or so. Of course it missed it's completion time by four years and a couple hundred millions is cost overruns. From what I understand it's due to open next February.
That was for a two mile stretch. Spokane still has miles of freeway to build and received around $800 million in financing from the state.
Funny thing is both of the projects originally cost over $2 billion, but Spokane's funding comes in spurts. Construction of the remaining N-S freeway in Spokane is slated for 2029.

I agree. There seems to be some inequity with these highway projects. I'm sure Olympia could argue it is based on a mathematical formula that breaks down tax revenue. Blah, blah, blah.

A N/S Spokane freeway is almost useless without a major intersection with I-90. I understand that is expensive, but it needs to be built, and not in 2029.