

Bay Area as a City State - smysore
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/10/INEK1EAPGN.DTL

======
sstrudeau
This reminds me of one of my unexpected favorite reads: Jane Jacob's "Cities &
the Wealth of Nations" [http://www.amazon.com/Cities-Wealth-Nations-Jane-
Jacobs/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Cities-Wealth-Nations-Jane-
Jacobs/dp/0394729110)

She argues that cities (more specifically, city-regions) are the most
fundamental economic unit, and many of the problems that national economies
encounter are a result of an imbalance created by tying together multiple
city-region economies; and tying them together (and together with large rural
areas) creates political problems (because their interests do not align). She
also points to cities like Singapore & Hong Kong to show how separating a
city-region politically and economically from other city-regions, and
decoupling large, rural areas allows for optimal economic conditions for
cities. She's not a trained economist, but as a city resident, her argument
resonated pretty strongly with me -- though, as a practical matter, well, not
at all practical.

~~~
meric
An observant reader (or someone who lived in singapore or hong kong) would
note that both Singapore and Hong Kong do not have true democratic
governments.

Hong Kong currently has a parliament that is only one third elected by the
people, one third elected by the government itself and one third elected by
special interest groups. The executive (the head of state) is elected by 800
people representing private citizens and special interest groups. In practice
however, these 800 people are all selected by the government itself. As a
result, each year you see the same billionaires in the 800 group, always
electing the candidate who has shaken the most hands with the PRC government.

There are a multitude of economic consequences as a result of this. Policies
left over from decades ago include fixed electricity pricing, price floor on
bus tickets, supermarket duopolies, tunnel operator monopolies, misplaced
housing estates, local shopping center monopolies, are some problems the
government is not willing to deal with. (Why would they, to lose support among
33% of voters who also happen to be most economically well-off and to be
accused of "economic interference"?) These are all things that exacerbates
income inequality. Income inequality is increasing not because the highest
income people are producing more but because they're earning more from the
inefficient market and political system geared towards them.

Everyone thinks Hong Kong has like the best economic system ever, but I'd like
to point out that they don't.

Of course, things I've said here are very political and you might get
different responses depending on who you're talking to...

~~~
Gormo
I didn't know that re Hong Kong's government.

The makeup of their government sounds a lot like the classical mixed republic,
with elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy combined into a single
set of institutions.

Historically, the states that had this structure tended to encourage some of
the most stable and prosperous societies, e.g. the Roman Republic and early
modern England.

If Hong Kong is really organized like this, it's not surprising that they have
such a strong economy. I suppose how long it will last depends on how long the
PRC will maintain their hands-off policy and how long Hong Kong itself can
stave off internal pressure to change their constitution to favor one faction
or another.

------
ant5
Residents pay taxes to the feds and the state, some of that money trickles
back down to the state, and some of _that_ money trickles back down to the
city.

Wake me up when we can pay taxes to our city-states, and some of that money
trickles up to the state, and some of _that_ money trickles up to the feds.

~~~
russell
You would love CA then, where the state seizes local taxes to pay state bills
and the republicans rant on about lowering taxes. The cities are feeling the
pinch and have to cut local services.

~~~
ant5
That's not at all what I said I wanted :)

I want trickle-up instead of trickle-down taxes, ie, the city controls the
purse strings instead of the federal and state governments.

~~~
russell
I know. I was being deliberately obtuse. Imperial China had what you were
talking about and it was institutionalized corruption.

------
tmsh
Google is incorporated in Delaware. Apple (through Braeburn Capital since the
mid-2000s) manages most of its assets in Nevada. They're not paying state
corporate income taxes to anyone, let alone California. Perhaps they're not
using any of the services that California state taxes provide. But it's sort
of a complicated argument.

The state has a long history. Perhaps this article is a good way to break the
deadlock. But realistically, corporations are already acting as if this were a
city state (funding their nearby cities much more than the state, etc.).

So I don't know. If anything, I think they should move the capital to San
Francisco, so that there is better dialogue and involvement with businesses.
Similarly, I don't quite understand what the point of Springfield, Illinois,
or Albany, New York are. Maybe there's a reason though...

~~~
inanimate
I have always thought that there is a reason (or can be, depending). When the
capital city is also the largest city, the rest of the state can often be
ignored (a complaint from many about Boston, for example). If the capital is
outside of the major cities then the government can better focus on the state
as a whole without getting involved in local politics (think Albany vs New
York City).

Also, often capitals are moved outside of major cities due to population and
infrastructure, as sometimes larger cities can't sustain any more growth
(which is what happened to Malaysia).

San Francisco has interestingly never been a contender for the capital, as
before Sacramento it was Monterey (and Benicia and Vallejo but those were just
stints). And if it were, the odds of the State focusing on the Bay Area before
anywhere else could indeed become an issue.

~~~
Gormo
If there's a significant economic, cultural, and political divergence between
a city and the rest of its state, there's also a strong argument to separate
the cities off as autonomous city-states.

If people in upstate NY and NYC have conflicting interests, wouldn't it be
better for both parties to separate NYC as as state in its own right, rather
than maintain the compromise solution of Albany?

------
waterlesscloud
Of course a bay area city state would vote to spend no money on the military
industrial complex, and then an orange county city state would invade and
conquer them.

~~~
thingie
Well, it seems that Singapore, as a model city state in that article, has much
stronger military forces than many much larger and more populated countries.

~~~
jorgeortiz85
I think waterlesscloud was alluding to the political preferences of Bay Area
residents.

------
patrickk
Reading this article, I immediately thought of this prediction, where a
Russian economist predicted that the US would break into six separate pieces
by 2010:

[http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/us-to-split-
into-6-pie...](http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/us-to-split-
into-6-pieces-in-2010---russian-economist-predicts/blog-288429/)

------
davidw
If I were in charge of California, an independent Bay Area would be paying
through the nose for water.

~~~
russell
Residential users use about 10% of the water, last time I looked. Larger users
are alpha, hay, and rice. So if we ban growing rice in the desert, we will
have plenty for the people. CA rice is probably for export, because it is the
shor grain variety, not the long grain that most of us eat.

~~~
baguasquirrel
That is true, but what parent is alluding to is that the rest of California
would have a monopoly on our water supply. The real demand matters little when
said demand is inelastic and only one guy controls it.

This is probably the one biggest reason why nation-states exist as they do
today. The sum of the parts is less than the whole. This leads to some
interesting ideas. What if societies go through downturns (and even collapse)
because the central bureaucracy becomes a net negative instead of a net
positive, as is happening in California today? But this digresses from the
topic at hand.

~~~
russell
Actually not. San Francisco, and East Bay MUD which supply much of the SF
Peninsula and the East Bay both own their own Sierra dams and infrastructure.
I dont think a hostage situation would ensue.

------
ImFatYoureFat
"In an age when nations have become so large that their citizens no longer
identify with distant governments..."

What? it would seem like the complete opposite of this is true. I would say
that nationalism and national identity, in the US and most other places in the
world, is stronger now than it has been in the past 50 years.

~~~
krakensden
Indeed. Honestly that seems like the biggest problem with the plan- most local
politicians and representatives are complete nobodies, they get elected by
riding the coattails of presidential and maybe the senatorial elections.

~~~
natrius
That's because the media doesn't do a good job of informing people about what
state and local politicians actually do. Luckily, there's a way to fix that.
At the Texas Tribune, we're aiming to solve that problem, and there are
similar California-based organizations.

<http://californiawatch.org/>

<http://www.baycitizen.org/>

------
russell
Thank god this wont happen. I live just north of San Luis Obispo and would be
left with the same old mess. Better would be to fix the mess in Sacramento. A
new governor with a more pragmatic outlook, Jerry Brown, passing the
initiative to remove the budget supermajority would be a good start.

~~~
chengas123
I'm not so sure it'd be that bad. California would get a greater voice in the
Senate and thus receive back more of the tax dollars we pay federally (we
currently receive far less than we payout with a sizable portion of our funds
going to other states). And I have to imagine state politics would be
simplified by making the state smaller.

------
thingie
It's kind of silly California, 'we', Bay Area, are the best and greatest of
all, you need us, bow before us. This sounds too one-sided and most likely,
it's not that simple.

Anyway, except this reasoning, I'm very keen on the idea of city states, I'd
like to try something like that, the city I live in is most likely the first
thing I try to identify with, and it is perhaps the authority that affects my
life the most (and I even can't vote in the city where I live now…).

