I agree but they don't make any money on their own separation from the coast would not go good for them . they would become like other mountain town across the u.s a bunch of meth labs and xanax. the inland empire and other inland areas already have a meth and pill problem.
Can you layman terms what the fuck's going on for me please? I have no idea about article 4 and section 3 for a start.
Yes it is a retire/hide out part of the state
seems like you are going to avoid living in the dystopian mad max California pictured in blue,we are in the yellow.
most of the population lives on the coast any thing that makes money is there. the ports are also there. rent prices are higher and property value is higher. people come from all over the planet to live there they don't go to tulare or any of the other crappy area pictured in blue in "new California" because it has shittier climate and terrain like desert ,mountains and forrest.
Isn't that also the area where most of the tax revenue is spent, and the crime is? In addition to the dogshit air quality and the threat of earthquake?
there is a shitload of crime in the blue in new california it isn't some utopian society.
Does the majority of violent crime not occur in the more heavily populated areas of California? It's certainly possible it doesn't but it would be extremely unique.
I don't have the time and energy to entertain your trolling this was your original contention was "how does one quantify the coastal California making more money" I already answered that.
Having population and industry doesn't equate to making money. California has a staggering state debt, and most of it come from the population centers. It would make perfect sense for rural areas that don't typically see the benefits of tax spending not to want to contribute.
