If it were a business proposal, would you invest in the "State of Jefferson"?
"State of Jefferson" proponents tell counties that they will get the bulk of the power and money.
The truth: this proposal would create a very weak, balkanized state with little uniformity throughout creating confusion and uncertainty. It wouldn’t even guarantee that the few comparatively prosperous counties would choose to help the poorer counties.
The region's financial situation overall does not favor a separation. Most of the counties in the proposed state receive far more money from the state of California than we send in taxes. The taxes paid in urban areas subsidize our schools, roads and services. In exchange, we are the stewards of the water and natural resources that the state depends on. We have a good deal going, so let’s fix the problems, not create more of them.
Representation
The truth: “State of Jefferson” proponents say it’s all about representation because northern California only has 3 state senators out of 40 in the state. In the new state they propose that each county would have one or two senators instead of proportional representation based on population. The US Supreme Court ruled 50 years ago in Reynolds v Sims that state legislatures must base representation on the principle of “one person, one vote.” The proponents now want to create a system of representation that has not been legal since 1964, in a state that would violate federal law from inception. They assure each county that by adopting their “Declaration of Separation” it will have “standing” in litigation to overturn Reynolds v Sims by virtue of being “harmed by lack of representation”.
Such litigation would be most unlikely to prevail, and certain to be extremely expensive. Is the county financially prepared to take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court?
Financial assumptions:
The 20 targeted counties are Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity and Yuba. Del Norte’s and Tehama’s citizens have voted – Del Norte opted out and Tehama opted in. In six other counties the Board of Supervisors decided for their citizens and opted in without any financial study. There is no way of telling which -- if any -- of the other 12 counties might want to join.
The truth: The financial viability model of the SOJ depends heavily on the inclusion of the relatively prosperous Placer and El Dorado counties. These two counties surrounding Lake Tahoe have many residents working in Sacramento who are very unlikely to join this ill-conceived state knowing they would be the cash cows to the rest of the Jefferson counties and that many of those state jobs would be lost.
The truth: The model produced by the SOJ proponents includes only cursory and unverified information about the effect on counties and K-12 schools. It does not include funding or an analysis of the effects on other government entities such as cities, fire districts, public utility districts, irrigation districts, etc.
The truth: The group assumes that the new state would be paying a portion of California's "$340 billion debt" based upon the percentage of population that becomes Jefferson. The state's debt is actually $778 billion which more than doubles their debt assumption. They also state that Jefferson will be paying ZERO interest on that debt over thirty years even though interest rates on state bonds issued in the last two years averaged 5%. As a new state with no credit record and unstable revenue, it is very doubtful that Jefferson would be able to achieve the same low interest rate that California receives. Even at 5% the annual debt payment doubles and the new state’s net revenue plunges from their projected $3.16 billion to $840 million.
Supporters say that instead of the state of California sending back only 85% of property taxes collected, they will stay within the new state.
The truth: The state collects property tax on motor vehicles, the license fee part of your DMV bill, and sends 100% to the counties. According to the county assessors, auditors and tax collectors, the counties collect secured and unsecured property tax and 100% stays in the county now and never goes to the state. The proponents erroneously claim the state retains 15% of all property tax - what else didn’t they get right?
The truth: collectively, the targeted counties receive more funding from the state of California than they pay in taxes and fees.
How will the new state fund the K-12 schools, law enforcement, road maintenance, higher education, social welfare, and healthcare with even LESS funding since it will have zero corporate tax rate, lower personal income tax and sales tax rates and no fees?
Business
The proponents say that business will flock to Jefferson due to zero corporate tax rate.
The truth: basic economic wisdom says that businesses need good infrastructure, utilities and regulatory certainty.
Legal uncertainty
How many years will it take before a new state can establish a legal government, set laws and regulations, and become fully functional? Nothing less can provide the predictability needed for businesses to invest there.
The truth: it took 50 years for the dust to settle when West Virginia separated from Virginia and West Virginia is still poor. Given the current statistics on poverty in the counties in question, the "State of Jefferson" would be poor too. Why should we secede from the 8th largest economy in the world to become one of the poorest states in the union?
The proponents say that the state will support itself through the use of its natural resources in “a minimally regulated business friendly state.” They plan to create jobs in logging and mining, thereby generating tax revenue.
The truth: A substantial portion of the land is in federal ownership and all of it is subject to federal law. Federal regulations on air quality, conservation, water, timber and mining will continue to apply. "State of Jefferson" proponents say they expect the feds to allow unrestricted logging and mining once the new state is in control, an assumption that has no basis in fact.
Mark Baird, the leader of the movement, says “We don’t need to regulate the air people breathe. I mean, look at this place …”
The truth: California's strict environmental regulations are the reason that our air and water are healthy. Gutting them will destroy our environment and quality of life. Recently the Economic Resource Council of Nevada County held a forum on economic growth. Panelists -- all from prosperous communities -- were asked if excessive environmental regulations hurt business growth. Three of the four replied that they have very strict environmental and zoning regulations because remaining a desirable place to live is the most important thing they can do to attract business.
Education
How will K-12 schools be funded?
The truth: schools in the region currently receive a significant amount of their funding from the state of CA through appropriations and grants. The new state will have no money to replace these programs.
How will educational content be determined? Proponents want to delegate decisions about curriculum and textbooks to each county and to teach local “values” instead of the new common core standards and what they call "social engineering".
The truth: common core teaches kids critical thinking skills which are essential for their own future prosperity and for their education as voters. Teaching the history of discrimination is a way for our society to become more tolerant - personal and religious beliefs should be addressed at home.
How will counties make sure their schools are accredited and that classes meet the college standards for admissions?
The truth: there will be as many variations in curriculum standards as there are counties in the new state. This will create an accreditation mine field and make it very difficult for high school graduates to get the additional education they need to succeed in the modern world.
How will creating a new school bureaucracy within each county reduce government costs?
The truth: it can't! With reduced funding for education an even higher proportion will have to go to administration instead of to teachers, books, and classrooms.
What options will our kids have for a college education?
The truth: very few. At most, the new state will contain only two California State University campuses (Chico and Humboldt), with no University of California campus-- and if Humboldt and Butte counties decline to participate there will be no four year universities at all. Parents and students will have to pay $22,000/year additional out of state tuition to attend a UC campus, or an additional $11,000/year to attend CSU.
How will the new state finance the CSUs and community colleges that remain in Jefferson?
The truth: nobody has any idea.
Social Welfare
The truth: each county will have to re-evaluate the level of support for indigent elderly, disabled and family income support, mental health, substance abuse treatment, indigent medical care, homeless services, child and domestic abuse, and in-home supportive services based on local input and financial capability. Some of the counties with the greatest needs will have the fewest resources to meet those needs, and its most vulnerable citizens will be the ones to suffer.
Law Enforcement and Judicial System
The truth: there will be no state highway patrol or state police, leaving each county sheriff responsible for all law enforcement within the county borders, with no indication of how these additional responsibilities will be funded. Funding for the county court system is even more mysterious since the state of California covers these costs, not the individual counties.
Roads
The truth: each county will be responsible for maintaining all its roads, including former state highways. This will lead to differing maintenance standards from county to county depending on funding availability. How will this impact business infrastructure and tourism if roads are not consistently maintained and improved?
Process
The truth: SOJ proponents base their secession process on Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that a new state must have “consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.” This process has not been used since 1820, and it is most unclear how it would function. Would the California Assembly and State Senate vote separately or concurrently? What about the two federal legislative branches? It is clear that neither a popular vote nor Presidential concurrence would be required: does this seem right?
Proponents would like it to work this way:
THEN the people of Jefferson will know the financial impacts of this decision, but it will be too late. We will never have had a chance to vote on what the people want. Our fate will be decided by the Boards of Supervisors, state legislature and Congress.
Why should three Supervisors have the right to make a decision with such far-reaching consequences for each individual, each family and each business? We need a thorough independent financial evaluation, public hearings with all stakeholders, and to require the proponents to use the initiative process to solicit an advisory vote of county residents.
They say that if the legislature 'ignores' acting on these Declarations, a lawsuit will be brought to force the state to allow one senator from each county.
The truth: This is not within the state’s authority – it is a US Supreme Court decision. Are the counties prepared to fund a lawsuit which will have to go as far as the Supreme Court? and if so how will county services be impacted? In his majority decision in Reynold v Sims (1964), Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." There is no good reason to suppose that this decision would be reversed.
We Can Do Better!
The truth: it's a lot easier to fix what is wrong than to go down a long, arduous path that is so likely to harm families, businesses and government. Right now, this is what Keep It California will do:
The truth: this proposal would create a very weak, balkanized state with little uniformity throughout creating confusion and uncertainty. It wouldn’t even guarantee that the few comparatively prosperous counties would choose to help the poorer counties.
The region's financial situation overall does not favor a separation. Most of the counties in the proposed state receive far more money from the state of California than we send in taxes. The taxes paid in urban areas subsidize our schools, roads and services. In exchange, we are the stewards of the water and natural resources that the state depends on. We have a good deal going, so let’s fix the problems, not create more of them.
Representation
The truth: “State of Jefferson” proponents say it’s all about representation because northern California only has 3 state senators out of 40 in the state. In the new state they propose that each county would have one or two senators instead of proportional representation based on population. The US Supreme Court ruled 50 years ago in Reynolds v Sims that state legislatures must base representation on the principle of “one person, one vote.” The proponents now want to create a system of representation that has not been legal since 1964, in a state that would violate federal law from inception. They assure each county that by adopting their “Declaration of Separation” it will have “standing” in litigation to overturn Reynolds v Sims by virtue of being “harmed by lack of representation”.
Such litigation would be most unlikely to prevail, and certain to be extremely expensive. Is the county financially prepared to take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court?
Financial assumptions:
The 20 targeted counties are Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity and Yuba. Del Norte’s and Tehama’s citizens have voted – Del Norte opted out and Tehama opted in. In six other counties the Board of Supervisors decided for their citizens and opted in without any financial study. There is no way of telling which -- if any -- of the other 12 counties might want to join.
The truth: The financial viability model of the SOJ depends heavily on the inclusion of the relatively prosperous Placer and El Dorado counties. These two counties surrounding Lake Tahoe have many residents working in Sacramento who are very unlikely to join this ill-conceived state knowing they would be the cash cows to the rest of the Jefferson counties and that many of those state jobs would be lost.
The truth: The model produced by the SOJ proponents includes only cursory and unverified information about the effect on counties and K-12 schools. It does not include funding or an analysis of the effects on other government entities such as cities, fire districts, public utility districts, irrigation districts, etc.
The truth: The group assumes that the new state would be paying a portion of California's "$340 billion debt" based upon the percentage of population that becomes Jefferson. The state's debt is actually $778 billion which more than doubles their debt assumption. They also state that Jefferson will be paying ZERO interest on that debt over thirty years even though interest rates on state bonds issued in the last two years averaged 5%. As a new state with no credit record and unstable revenue, it is very doubtful that Jefferson would be able to achieve the same low interest rate that California receives. Even at 5% the annual debt payment doubles and the new state’s net revenue plunges from their projected $3.16 billion to $840 million.
Supporters say that instead of the state of California sending back only 85% of property taxes collected, they will stay within the new state.
The truth: The state collects property tax on motor vehicles, the license fee part of your DMV bill, and sends 100% to the counties. According to the county assessors, auditors and tax collectors, the counties collect secured and unsecured property tax and 100% stays in the county now and never goes to the state. The proponents erroneously claim the state retains 15% of all property tax - what else didn’t they get right?
The truth: collectively, the targeted counties receive more funding from the state of California than they pay in taxes and fees.
How will the new state fund the K-12 schools, law enforcement, road maintenance, higher education, social welfare, and healthcare with even LESS funding since it will have zero corporate tax rate, lower personal income tax and sales tax rates and no fees?
Business
The proponents say that business will flock to Jefferson due to zero corporate tax rate.
The truth: basic economic wisdom says that businesses need good infrastructure, utilities and regulatory certainty.
Legal uncertainty
How many years will it take before a new state can establish a legal government, set laws and regulations, and become fully functional? Nothing less can provide the predictability needed for businesses to invest there.
The truth: it took 50 years for the dust to settle when West Virginia separated from Virginia and West Virginia is still poor. Given the current statistics on poverty in the counties in question, the "State of Jefferson" would be poor too. Why should we secede from the 8th largest economy in the world to become one of the poorest states in the union?
The proponents say that the state will support itself through the use of its natural resources in “a minimally regulated business friendly state.” They plan to create jobs in logging and mining, thereby generating tax revenue.
The truth: A substantial portion of the land is in federal ownership and all of it is subject to federal law. Federal regulations on air quality, conservation, water, timber and mining will continue to apply. "State of Jefferson" proponents say they expect the feds to allow unrestricted logging and mining once the new state is in control, an assumption that has no basis in fact.
Mark Baird, the leader of the movement, says “We don’t need to regulate the air people breathe. I mean, look at this place …”
The truth: California's strict environmental regulations are the reason that our air and water are healthy. Gutting them will destroy our environment and quality of life. Recently the Economic Resource Council of Nevada County held a forum on economic growth. Panelists -- all from prosperous communities -- were asked if excessive environmental regulations hurt business growth. Three of the four replied that they have very strict environmental and zoning regulations because remaining a desirable place to live is the most important thing they can do to attract business.
Education
How will K-12 schools be funded?
The truth: schools in the region currently receive a significant amount of their funding from the state of CA through appropriations and grants. The new state will have no money to replace these programs.
How will educational content be determined? Proponents want to delegate decisions about curriculum and textbooks to each county and to teach local “values” instead of the new common core standards and what they call "social engineering".
The truth: common core teaches kids critical thinking skills which are essential for their own future prosperity and for their education as voters. Teaching the history of discrimination is a way for our society to become more tolerant - personal and religious beliefs should be addressed at home.
How will counties make sure their schools are accredited and that classes meet the college standards for admissions?
The truth: there will be as many variations in curriculum standards as there are counties in the new state. This will create an accreditation mine field and make it very difficult for high school graduates to get the additional education they need to succeed in the modern world.
How will creating a new school bureaucracy within each county reduce government costs?
The truth: it can't! With reduced funding for education an even higher proportion will have to go to administration instead of to teachers, books, and classrooms.
What options will our kids have for a college education?
The truth: very few. At most, the new state will contain only two California State University campuses (Chico and Humboldt), with no University of California campus-- and if Humboldt and Butte counties decline to participate there will be no four year universities at all. Parents and students will have to pay $22,000/year additional out of state tuition to attend a UC campus, or an additional $11,000/year to attend CSU.
How will the new state finance the CSUs and community colleges that remain in Jefferson?
The truth: nobody has any idea.
Social Welfare
The truth: each county will have to re-evaluate the level of support for indigent elderly, disabled and family income support, mental health, substance abuse treatment, indigent medical care, homeless services, child and domestic abuse, and in-home supportive services based on local input and financial capability. Some of the counties with the greatest needs will have the fewest resources to meet those needs, and its most vulnerable citizens will be the ones to suffer.
Law Enforcement and Judicial System
The truth: there will be no state highway patrol or state police, leaving each county sheriff responsible for all law enforcement within the county borders, with no indication of how these additional responsibilities will be funded. Funding for the county court system is even more mysterious since the state of California covers these costs, not the individual counties.
Roads
The truth: each county will be responsible for maintaining all its roads, including former state highways. This will lead to differing maintenance standards from county to county depending on funding availability. How will this impact business infrastructure and tourism if roads are not consistently maintained and improved?
Process
The truth: SOJ proponents base their secession process on Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that a new state must have “consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.” This process has not been used since 1820, and it is most unclear how it would function. Would the California Assembly and State Senate vote separately or concurrently? What about the two federal legislative branches? It is clear that neither a popular vote nor Presidential concurrence would be required: does this seem right?
Proponents would like it to work this way:
- First, the Board of Supervisors will adopt their Declaration and Petition to Withdraw from the State of California. According to SOJ proponents, no financial analysis of the impact of separating from California is needed prior to adoption because "we will find out" when negotiations with the state take place later on.
- Next, the counties that adopt the Declaration and Petition will ask the state legislature to pass the petition to create the new state. Their argument that separation will save California taxpayers a lot of money could have considerable traction.
- Then it would go to Congress and have to be passed by a majority of both houses.
- A constitutional convention (chosen by some unspecified process) would draft a new constitution.
- Finally, negotiations between California and the new state would take place: these would cover the amount of California’s debt and unfunded liabilities to be assumed by Jefferson (an unknown but enormous sum that SOJ proponents assume would bear zero percent interest!); the ownership and transfer of state property including parks, prisons, highways, dams, state buildings, Caltrans, CalFire and CHP facilities and equipment; an endless list of other issues
- A new system of laws and regulations will be adopted which would devolve most governmental responsibility to each county. Counties would adopt new laws to fit the local sensibilities.
THEN the people of Jefferson will know the financial impacts of this decision, but it will be too late. We will never have had a chance to vote on what the people want. Our fate will be decided by the Boards of Supervisors, state legislature and Congress.
Why should three Supervisors have the right to make a decision with such far-reaching consequences for each individual, each family and each business? We need a thorough independent financial evaluation, public hearings with all stakeholders, and to require the proponents to use the initiative process to solicit an advisory vote of county residents.
They say that if the legislature 'ignores' acting on these Declarations, a lawsuit will be brought to force the state to allow one senator from each county.
The truth: This is not within the state’s authority – it is a US Supreme Court decision. Are the counties prepared to fund a lawsuit which will have to go as far as the Supreme Court? and if so how will county services be impacted? In his majority decision in Reynold v Sims (1964), Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." There is no good reason to suppose that this decision would be reversed.
We Can Do Better!
The truth: it's a lot easier to fix what is wrong than to go down a long, arduous path that is so likely to harm families, businesses and government. Right now, this is what Keep It California will do:
- Join with others to educate the legislature about the reasons rural areas should be exempt from some regulations or be subject to them in a modified form.
- Lobby the state to pass SB 234 for the Wildlife Management Area PILT funding our counties are owed by the state and the subventions owed for land in the Williamson Act.
- Work with our legislators to make sure ALL fire fee revenues are devoted to fire prevention projects in the State Responsibility Area
- Work with existing groups to bring high speed Internet to the area
- Support bringing more opportunities for higher education, especially in technical areas
- Support bringing new technological, clean businesses to the area
- Support natural-resource based economic development that is sustainable and suited to local conditions
- Solicit support from existing rural groups outside and inside Sacramento
- Get involved! Apply for a position on a public commission or board, run for office
- Call, email or write your county or state representative about issues that you care about
- Elect effective representatives who can get results for rural counties instead of grandstanding.