NationStates Jolt Archive

This is something I have been thinking about a lot for a while now. I think most of my 8 million neighbors in New York City have at least had this thought fleetingly cross their mind. The basis of it is the needs and tax contributions of a major metropolitan area are greater than the surrounding countryside, yet the state as a whole will use the city as a cash cow while often being stringent with the coffers. New York City, which provides a huge percentage of New York's tax revenue, yet is often blocked by upstate lawmakers when it attempts to secure much-needed funds, is a really good example of this. I have Canadians Canadians tell the same story about Quebec and Montreal.
To correct this disenfranchisement, many countries have opted to make states/provinces/prefectures etc. out of metropolitan areas. This allows cities to direct their affairs and finances as the people want them, instead of being controlled by some rural politicians who represent far sparser commnities yet reap the fruit of the big city's economy. I believe this is a good system that is much farer to all. Here are some examples of states adjunct to metro areas and, in some cases, their sattelite cities:

GERMANY:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Germany_Laender_Map.png
3=berlin, 5=Bremen, 6=Bremen

MEXICO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mexico-States.png
1= Aguascalientes 8= Colima 16= Cuernavaca 28=Tlaxcala Not Shown= Districta Federal(Mexico City)

So, your thoughts?

Well I think what you mean is a city state status? Im not sure because the link you show is one of states for those respective nations. Albeit they are smaller than the majority of US states. From my understanding they do operate in the same manner as the US larger versions.

Now maybe your thinking of a "County" style government. Much like LA county? That seems to work for that particular area.

I live in the Puget Sound and can tell you that King County(Seattle) dictates for the most part the what the rest of Washington state does. It is full of a bunch of lefties while the state in general is moderate to right leaning. That process you describe of money being distributed inproperly works both ways. I happen to live in an area that its sounds like the opposite of NY politics. I know that people around the state would wish that Seattle would become a city state so everyone else around it wont have to pay for there pet projects. I for one do not think that Seattles economic contribution is on the same level as there political pull and the number of pigs they have at the state tax trough. Maybe its apples and oranges but I think there are multiple outcomes to the same situation.

It's not just upstate that blocks these things, after all the assembly is largely controlled by city's voting block.

The real problem is the lack of marginal seats in the city. As such, neither party bothers to go to bat for many city issues. The democrats know they are never going to lose them, so it's not worth spending the political capital, and the republicans know they aren't going to win, so they don't bother to propose anything. Upstate benefits because it swings more. (Though to be fair, we do benefit more from the State Authorities, and super agencies than the rest of the state).

I would like to see the commuter tax re-instated though. I am sick of people coming here, using our services, and not paying for them. I though Guiliani's two tier parking rate scheme was a good one too - it's a shame the city pussied out and didn't fight the court battles for it.

Oh yah. And the pay what you wish at the Met. and Natural history museum should only be for city residents. Same with free wednesdays at the zoo.

I have a lot of beefs with the way the MTA is run as well.

Other than that, it's all good.

at the very least we should redraw some political boundaries to make urban areas at least fall into a single larger political body, unlike the multiple counties/states that many of the u.s. cities are in currently.

at the very least we should redraw some political boundaries to make urban areas at least fall into a single larger political body, unlike the multiple counties/states that many of the u.s. cities are in currently.

That's not really a problem for NYC. They did that when they incorporated the five counties under a single city government 100yrs ago. The counties still have borough status, but they are largely toothless, and have no taxing or spending power.

And the city itself does already have a lot of autonomy from the state. It can make it's own criminal law, has its own independant agencies, and even has it's own income tax.

The main problem is that it sends a lot more to albany than it gets back. That is somewhat inevitable, given that its economy dwarfs the rest of the state, but the imbalance is probably too great at the moment.

California and Oregon had a joint seperatist movement because they felt that the cities weren't actually considering the needs of the more rural areas of Northern California and Southern Oregon, ignoring thier needs for better roads despite the importance of the lumber industry up there.

It's easy to lose track of the needs of 'over there' when considering the needs of 'ever here'. Sometimes rural areas aren't putting in the per head tax dollar but are contributing in another way and that has to be balanced.

Cities are already the 700 pound gorilla, it isn't always neccisary to give that gorilla a club.

It's easy to lose track of the needs of 'over there' when considering the needs of 'ever here'.
Clever, did you think that one up by yourself, or is there a political movement out there who wants their slogan back?

Clever, did you think that one up by yourself, or is there a political movement out there who wants their slogan back?
All by my lonesome. You can use it for yours unless it is already in use (I wouldn't be suprised, it's got a pithy quality that seems kind of natural)

Well I think what you mean is a city state status? Im not sure because the link you show is one of states for those respective nations. Albeit they are smaller than the majority of US states. From my understanding they do operate in the same manner as the US larger versions.

Now maybe your thinking of a "County" style government. Much like LA county? That seems to work for that particular area.

No, I was talking about a city-state.

GERMANY:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Germany_Laender_Map.png
3=berlin, 5=Bremen, 6=Bremen
ARRGGN...Are you trying to make yourself an enemy?

http://www.hamburg.de/Bilder/hhwappenBig.jpg

I'd love to see all the back-stabbing to see who is the overlord of New York.
The Mayor would become some kind of Warlord.

There's been talk of Chicago splitting off from the rest of Illinois, and NYC splitting of from New York, for just the reasons you described. Chicago has around half of Illinois' total population, and therefore (I assume) tends to dominate politics.

I'm somewhat lukewarm on this. On the one hand, I can see how there are different interests that often come into conflict; on the other hand, I have hard time seeing those conflicts as dissappearing should certain cities gain statehood. To use an example from California, Southern California would still need Northern Californian water, whether it was a seperate state or not.

Meh. I generally prefer compromise over division, especially when divison does little to resolve the problems that were around before questions of political influnce came into play.

There's been talk of Chicago splitting off from the rest of Illinois [...] for just the reasons you described.

well, that and because we tend to forget that the rest of the state is actually part of illinois. i always assume that illinois ends just beyond rockford, dekalb, bloomington/normal, and champaign/urbana. if pressed, i might admit that maybe the borders might include peoria, decatur, and perhaps springfield. outside of there the maps just say 'beyond here there be iowa'.

chicago also has the issue of spreading across 3 states (and its getting kind of close to southwestern michigan at this point, too), which i think adds even more unnecessary problems.

This is très Urban Archipelago. (http://www.urbanarchipelago.com/)

Clever, did you think that one up by yourself, or is there a political movement out there who wants their slogan back?

I'm sure rotovio has a claim to it.

This is très Urban Archipelago. (http://www.urbanarchipelago.com/)

Yes, the stranger. A Seattle institute. Fass didn't know you read this. I knew it was a all time favorite of the area I live in. But this is what the poster had in mind I believe. ;)

Yes, the stranger. A Seattle institute. Fass didn't know you read this. I knew it was a all time favorite of the area I live in. But this is what the poster had in mind I believe. ;)

Of course I read The Stranger. Have to have my fix of Savage Love and Seattle minutiae on a regular basis. :)

some rather nice maps of the usian metropolitan/micropolitan statistical areas and the borders of the actual urbanized areas (which are much more useful than stupid county-level data).

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/msa_maps2004/us_wall_1104.htm

some rather nice maps of the usian metropolitan/micropolitan statistical areas and the borders of the actual urbanized areas (which are much more useful than stupid county-level data).

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/msa_maps2004/us_wall_1104.htm

That's actually a better breakdown. I checked my area and it looks about right.

I'm very mixed on that Stranger article. It did make some interesting points,many of which I agreed with. However, the constant bashing of all rural people as "rubes" and our nation's heartland as a "S*ithole" undermined the the trust I would put in its opinions. Yes, may rural areas are backwards in their views, but as someone who has spent quite a lot of time in rural Wisconsin, where my grandparents live, I can tell you not all of them are grunting apes. furthermore, the part about not caring about family farms is incorrect. Actually most of the farm subsidies go to huge corperations that don't really need it, instead of small family farms that do.

I'm very mixed on that Stranger article. It did make some interesting points,many of which I agreed with. However, the constant bashing of all rural people as "rubes" and our nation's heartland as a "S*ithole" undermined the the trust I would put in its opinions. Yes, may rural areas are backwards in their views, but as someone who has spent quite a lot of time in rural Wisconsin, where my grandparents live, I can tell you not all of them are grunting apes. furthermore, the part about not caring about family farms is incorrect. Actually most of the farm subsidies go to huge corperations that don't really need it, instead of small family farms that do.


The stranger is not a mainstream publication. Not to discount some of the research they do on there articles. But one always has to keep in mind the political position they come from. They are blatantly against anything that isnt what they believe.

They are blatantly against anything that isnt what they believe.

Like most, but they just don't bullshit you.

I'm not a fan of "fair and balanced" when one side is obviously the correct one. ;)

Okies, I'll give you an example of a city with an independent - London. It might not be the best example as it has a number of quirks, but it'sthe example I know most about.

Quirks
There is one local government (1 on the map) that allows companies to vote in elections (It has 9,000 residents and 300,000 workers)
It has 3 tiers of government, local (borough), city wide (Greater London Authority) and Central government.

Results in council elections.
http://files.upl.silentwhisper.net/upload9/councils.PNG
Key (very important):
Red: New Labour ('left' *ahem*)
Blue: Conservatives ('right')
Yellow: Liberal Democrats ('central')
Key to numbers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_borough

How the system works (as far as I can tell :confused:)
It's all very confusing, all three areas of government have overlaps in power. Though technically central government has the last says as the boroughs and the GLA have their powers granted by parliament (GLA decisions overide the borough's, I think).

The GLA has city-wide power over for Transport, Policing, the Fire service, and planning. Whereas the boroughs have jurisdiction over leisure, environmental health, housing, rubbish collection, education, libraries and social services (The NHS is run by central government though). However, both the Boroughs and the GLA have the power to levy their own taxes. That being said both the boroughs and the GLA do not have absolute power over these areas, they have the power to make decisions which central government has allowed them to.

(hope that wasn't too boring)

All in all it seems to work quite well.

Though London does serve as an example that cities spend a lot of money if left to their own devices, and they also tend to vote these people in who do this. In the 80's there was a pan-London council called, the GLC, which was shut down by the Tory government over claims that it was over spending (the fact that council, lead by one 'Red Ken', endorsed a statue of Nelson Mandela when Thatcher still regarded Mandela as a terrorist, and that he putt up a billboard with with the 'real' rising umeployment figures (real, as in those not in work as opposed to those claiming the dole) could have had more to do with the GLC getting shut down). Then New Labour reestablished a city-wide government and called it the GLA (it isn't quite the same as the GLC), whereby by 'Red Ken' was promptly reelected as Mayor of London.