HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted May 23, 2006, 2:18 AM
oilcan's Avatar
oilcan oilcan is offline
Tokyo 1993 - 1998
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 384
Ahh the "Lets for the State of Columbia" has came about again? Rubbish.... Nothing to take away from Spokane's neighbors to the east.. it is beautiful country... But Spokane is where it is and gladfully so with it's great history and contribution to the state of Washington... It's funny to hear the "Modern day revolutionist" come up with these ideas.. at times shuned by Olympia sure but Spokane has such a vivarant history... and hell we took the major blow from Mt. St Helens.. Spokane has been the butt end of jokes from the west side... had our fair share of knocks.. but that adds character and gives Spokane that personality.. all in all that is comming from the nieve and of course the backlash is resentment with ideas like this. For those who want to create the "Great 51st state"....... %^& you! And all on the West side that want to seperate from us #@$ you too! ha ha.. Economically Horrible, Isolation, and to incorporate lower B.C.? just plain stoned there! Spokane has a right deserving place and has maintained 2nd largest for years.. (except a small beep with Tacoma) and the future is very bright in these current days.just keep things the way they are.. And what would they do with Wazzu? Allright Husky fans no comments there!

Last edited by oilcan; May 23, 2006 at 2:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted May 23, 2006, 2:26 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
I am just for smaller states, coming from the east coast. but I wouldnt want to see any of our now established states ever divide up any smaller, would be such a waste of money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted May 23, 2006, 2:50 AM
oilcan's Avatar
oilcan oilcan is offline
Tokyo 1993 - 1998
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 384
^ I hear yeah urban they are large on the west.. It would be a waste of money time etc..

But I have to admit I would be all about putting a State Capital building smack dab in Hillyard... !
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted May 23, 2006, 3:09 AM
bgwah's Avatar
bgwah bgwah is offline
TEH KING
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 4,202
Almost every single state has some bogus "secession" movement. None of them are serious. Eastern Washington is no different. From what I remember, Congress has to approve of new states anyway, and every sane person knows that to Congress, a new state wouldn't be about bettering the quality of life for citizens of the United States, it would be about which party gets more Senators and electoral votes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartskyscrapers
I've heard of the "State of Columbia" before. A friend of mine sent me an email about it a few years ago. Back then, the idea was to combine Eastern Washington, Northern Idaho and parts of Southeastern BC....in other words, it had to have been a really bad rumor or a half-assed attempt at an April Fools Joke since that would never happen. The west side of the state may ignore us when it comes to spending, but they love us when it comes to tax revenue...just a few more bucks to spend in Seattle. I REALLY doubt this would ever happen, and that's assuming there really is anyone who wants it to.

That said, Spokane would be a great capital city. Hmmmm, where should the capitol building be built?
I'm too lazy to find the numbers again, but from what I recall reading once, Metro Seattle gets 99 cents back from the state government for every dollar it sends. In other words, Seattle about breaks even.

Most of Eastern Washington gets a lot more than it pays. The exception of course being Metro Spokane, which is by far the most screwed region in the state.

I suppose Seattle should probably get a little less as urban areas always do and Spokane should get more as it probably isn't getting enough, but I don't think it is as dramatic as you are making it sound.

I mean, do you actually think secession would solve anything? Spokane would just be subsidizing the rural parts of the state again.

And the right time for "secession" would not have been 1900... States don't really break off of eachother and never have. West Virginia was technically illegal and occured during a Civil War, something that I can't imagine happening in Washington. Maine may be an exception, though I'm not sure.

Secession would have had to occur before Washington statehood in 1889.
__________________
Favorite Music: Everything except country
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted May 23, 2006, 3:37 AM
oilcan's Avatar
oilcan oilcan is offline
Tokyo 1993 - 1998
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 384
The Washington Blurps from above^

From Spokane:

"The west side of the state may ignore us when it comes to spending, but they love us when it comes to tax revenue"

From the West Side:

"The exception of course being Metro Spokane, which is by far the most screwed region in the state."


Summary from the West Side:

"I suppose Seattle should probably get a little less as urban areas always do and Spokane should get more as it probably isn't getting enough, but I don't think it is as dramatic as you are making it sound."


Just joking Bgwah.... ha ha.... I know what you are saying.. The thought of a new 51st state branching from the eastside is unrealistic and not justified to say the least..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted May 23, 2006, 3:47 AM
Hub for an Empire Hub for an Empire is offline
Hub for an Empire
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Spokane
Posts: 632
I do think the region needs to pull together as one! Both CDA and Spokane has made giant strides over ....let's say the last 5 years! This shouldn't just stop with the two counties.....but from every point in the Inland Northwest.....Yakima to Kallispell.....from Pendleton to Nelson B.C.!

Also, Spokane needs to forge relationships outside the Northwest region, with other cities, since it will increase the economics for the region!
__________________
Spokane - A city with a strong past and bright future!
Near Nature. Near Perfect.

Last edited by Hub for an Empire; May 27, 2006 at 6:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted May 23, 2006, 3:57 AM
oilcan's Avatar
oilcan oilcan is offline
Tokyo 1993 - 1998
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hub for an Empire
I do think the region needs to pull together as one! Both CDA and Spokane has made giant strides over ....let's say the last 5 years! This shouldn't just stop with the two counties.....but from every point in the Inland Northwest.....Yakima to Kallispel.....from Pendleton to Nelson B.C.!

Also, Spokane needs to forge relationships outside the Northwest region, with other cities, since it will increase the economics for the region!
The wisdom of Hub to put everything at ease......

Hub.... For Governor of the 51st State of Columbia!.. we can even get you one of those yellow planes!!


Ha ha.. jk..

I am very glad Spokane has people like you Hub.. you are positive and wise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted May 23, 2006, 7:30 AM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,752
oh whole we are at it, I think Portland wants to annex Vancouver into Oregon.....take that western washington, we are munching into you faster than a hungry poor teen with enough money in his pocket to buy ten pounds of food at Dicks!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted May 24, 2006, 4:37 AM
CrimsonW's Avatar
CrimsonW CrimsonW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spokane
Posts: 43
One of my favorite topics

While I would love to see eWA secede and form a new state with N. Idaho, ne Oregon and w Montana (which I think was the original geographic boundaries for Columbia), unfortunately I don't see it ever happening. This has been bandied about for many, many, many years. The S-R used to put out a special section once a year called "Progress" and every few years (it seemed) they'd roll out the "Columbia" idea.

About 10 years ago, the S-R also did a special multi-part story and analysis on the amount of state spending by way of comparing the metro Seattle area to metro Spokane. I don't remember the ratios exactly, but metro Seattle had a population of about 3:1 over Spokane, but State spending was something on the order of $10 in Seattle for every $1 in Spokane. Those numbers could be off a bit, but the discrepency was incredible.

I still have the special and should dig it out.

Pipe dream time: The perfect place for a capital complex would be where Kendall Yards is going. Other than that, I think that keeping it in West Central near all of the County governmental buildings would be excellent. It would offer great views of downtown, help further revitalize that area; and be close to the commercial district.

There is a simple way to eliminate the power imbalance that exists in Washington State. Both houses of our legislature are elected by population. As a result, representatives from the region bordered by Puget Sound to the West, the Cascades on the East, Everett to the North and Olympia to the South, can control both chambers of the legislature. If the Washington State Constitution were changed to provide that each County in the state had the same number of Senators then Pugopolis would control one chamber and the rest of the State would control the other. If this concept sounds familiar...that's because it's worked on the Federal level for 207ish years.

Washington Dreamin on such a springy daaaaay....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted May 24, 2006, 5:37 AM
bgwah's Avatar
bgwah bgwah is offline
TEH KING
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 4,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonW
About 10 years ago, the S-R also did a special multi-part story and analysis on the amount of state spending by way of comparing the metro Seattle area to metro Spokane. I don't remember the ratios exactly, but metro Seattle had a population of about 3:1 over Spokane, but State spending was something on the order of $10 in Seattle for every $1 in Spokane. Those numbers could be off a bit, but the discrepency was incredible.
It would be interesting if you could find the numbers. But I think you're a bit off with the population ratio? In the 2000 census, Metro Seattle had 3.5 million people and Spokane was less than 500,000, so I think the population ratio was more like 7-8:1. If so, then the numbers would be about the same as the ones am I remembering, with Spokane getting ~75 cents for every dollar it sends to the state govt and Seattle getting 99 cents.


Quote:
There is a simple way to eliminate the power imbalance that exists in Washington State. Both houses of our legislature are elected by population. As a result, representatives from the region bordered by Puget Sound to the West, the Cascades on the East, Everett to the North and Olympia to the South, can control both chambers of the legislature. If the Washington State Constitution were changed to provide that each County in the state had the same number of Senators then Pugopolis would control one chamber and the rest of the State would control the other. If this concept sounds familiar...that's because it's worked on the Federal level for 207ish years.
Well, considering the Supreme Court made that illegal, you're gonna have to keep dreaming.

But really, that is a horrible idea. 2,000 people in Garfield County having as much representation as nearly 2 million in King County?

We'd never let you get away with it, mwahaha.
__________________
Favorite Music: Everything except country
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted May 24, 2006, 5:58 AM
CrimsonW's Avatar
CrimsonW CrimsonW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spokane
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgwah
It would be interesting if you could find the numbers. But I think you're a bit off with the population ratio? In the 2000 census, Metro Seattle had 3.5 million people and Spokane was less than 500,000, so I think the population ratio was more like 7-8:1. If so, then the numbers would be about the same as the ones am I remembering, with Spokane getting ~75 cents for every dollar it sends to the state govt and Seattle getting 99 cents.

I believe the populations used were for the City of Seattle v. the City of Spokane, and that in fact is fairly close to 3:1


Well, considering the Supreme Court made that illegal, you're gonna have to keep dreaming.

That's what I've heard...but I've never actually researched the issue. Regardless...even if it's true...that's what Constitutional Amendments are for...

But really, that is a horrible idea. 2,000 people in Garfield County having as much representation as nearly 2 million in King County?

Right...makes as much sense as allowing Wyoming to have an equal voice to California...might as well scrap the Federal system too

We'd never let you get away with it, mwahaha.
Now here is a truism....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted May 24, 2006, 6:09 AM
bgwah's Avatar
bgwah bgwah is offline
TEH KING
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 4,202
Scrapping the federal system? If only it were up to me!

Though to be specific, Wyoming is only equal to California in one house. In the other, Wyoming has 1/55th the representation of California.

OK, so I probably wouldn't "scrap the federal system." But I don't think it needs to be applied to Washington.
__________________
Favorite Music: Everything except country
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted May 24, 2006, 6:09 AM
CrimsonW's Avatar
CrimsonW CrimsonW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spokane
Posts: 43
"Well, considering the Supreme Court made that illegal, you're gonna have to keep dreaming."

Do you have any authority or a cite to support this statement?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted May 24, 2006, 6:11 AM
bgwah's Avatar
bgwah bgwah is offline
TEH KING
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 4,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonW
"Well, considering the Supreme Court made that illegal, you're gonna have to keep dreaming."

Do you have any authority or a cite to support this statement?
"Having declared reapportionment issues justiciable in Baker, the court laid out a new test for evaluating such claims in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). In that case, the Court formulated the famous "one-man, one-vote" standard for legislative districting, holding that each individual had to be weighted equally in legislative apportionment. The Court decided that in states with bi-cameral legislatures both houses had to be apportioned on this standard, voiding the provision of the Arizona constitution which had provided for two state senators from each county, the California constitution providing for one senator from each county, and similar provisions elsewhere."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr
__________________
Favorite Music: Everything except country
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted May 24, 2006, 6:15 AM
CrimsonW's Avatar
CrimsonW CrimsonW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spokane
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgwah
"Having declared reapportionment issues justiciable in Baker, the court laid out a new test for evaluating such claims in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). In that case, the Court formulated the famous "one-man, one-vote" standard for legislative districting, holding that each individual had to be weighted equally in legislative apportionment. The Court decided that in states with bi-cameral legislatures both houses had to be apportioned on this standard, voiding the provision of the Arizona constitution which had provided for two state senators from each county, the California constitution providing for one senator from each county, and similar provisions elsewhere."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr

Thanks...I'll go read the case...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted May 24, 2006, 6:19 AM
CrimsonW's Avatar
CrimsonW CrimsonW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spokane
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgwah
Scrapping the federal system? If only it were up to me!

Though to be specific, Wyoming is only equal to California in one house. In the other, Wyoming has 1/55th the representation of California.

OK, so I probably wouldn't "scrap the federal system." But I don't think it needs to be applied to Washington.
And in Washington, under my proposal, garfield county would only have representation equal to King County in one chamber as well. The other chamber would still be controlled by the same people.

And of course you don't want the same system applied to Washington...the power of King County would be greatly diminished under such a system....which is of course why I want the change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted May 24, 2006, 6:27 AM
bgwah's Avatar
bgwah bgwah is offline
TEH KING
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 4,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonW
And in Washington, under my proposal, garfield county would only have representation equal to King County in one chamber as well. The other chamber would still be controlled by the same people.

And of course you don't want the same system applied to Washington...the power of King County would be greatly diminished under such a system....which is of course why I want the change.
I figured but I still like our legislature just the way it is.

King County: 30% of the population, 30% of the legislators. Sounds fair to me.

Like we already discussed, rural areas already get lots of extra money from the state anyway. They don't need an unfair advantage in the legislature, too.

Besides, I doubt Spokane would benefit much from a system like you're proposing. Or maybe you just want more Republicans.
__________________
Favorite Music: Everything except country
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted May 24, 2006, 6:41 AM
CrimsonW's Avatar
CrimsonW CrimsonW is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spokane
Posts: 43
Besides, I doubt Spokane would benefit much from a system like you're proposing. Or maybe you just want more Republicans. [/QUOTE]


That's not true at all! What I want is less democrats!

Seriously...actually what I want is for the power balance in this State to shift away from Puget Sound a bit. It's unhealthy for the State as a whole to be controlled by one region.


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted May 27, 2006, 3:21 AM
ghost22 ghost22 is offline
Rathdrum
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rathdrum
Posts: 121
the state of columbia never included any parts of canada, montana, or oregon. only n. idaho north of the salmon river and washington east of the cascades. of course the idea has had so many different proposals i am sure. but if this did happen it is true. spokane, tricities, yakima would loose a ton of tax revenue. think of all the projects we would have to fund on our own. the highway 95 project, new n/s freeway (whch by the way i think tips the scales on spending slightly.) only good thing though is we would really have 2 real freeways. 395 till oregon from ritzville and 190 and 10.5 miles of north spokane corridor. but think of the secondary highway costs, firefighter costs, fish and game patrol, and not to mention a new capital requires more crooks working to find more ways to steal our money for pink statues of their great grandmother. no offense to great grandmothers by the way. I dont like the idea i just wanted to bring it up. i agree with oilcan.
__________________
Let's get Spokane moving again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted May 27, 2006, 4:31 PM
InlandEmpire's Avatar
InlandEmpire InlandEmpire is offline
Cascadia Rising
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,065
On the CDA front..

I have heard (from my sources ) that the proposed Riverstone Tower is being redesigned as a purely commerical tower, closer to 16 floors high. So I'm guessing it won't be quite as tall as the original proposed 250' height, but it would be good to bring more jobs into Riverstone anyway.
__________________
www.kexp.org
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:36 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.