Redrawing Oregon Border (Portland, Pendleton, Hermiston: neighborhoods, buy, tenant)

[redguard57]

The Greater Idaho borders would net gain the Democrats a House seat out of OR-5. The Greater Idaho borders track OR-2's borders fairly well but also takes some of the red territory of OR-4. Idaho would gain about 500k people, pick up that Republican territory in the east & south of OR worth 1 house seat. Democrats would redraw OR-4 and OR-5 into much more D friendly territory and take Chavez-Deremer's seat.

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by redguard57

The Greater Idaho borders would net gain the Democrats a House seat out of OR-5. The Greater Idaho borders track OR-2's borders fairly well but also takes some of the red territory of OR-4. Idaho would gain about 500k people, pick up that Republican territory in the east & south of OR worth 1 house seat. Democrats would redraw OR-4 and OR-5 into much more D friendly territory and take Chavez-Deremer's seat.

It would probably be a net loss financially for Idaho. Because they would be taking over responsibility for a lot of infrastructure that isn't actually generating much if any income to support the state budget. Especially if all the rural folk out there evade ID sales taxes by driving west to shop in Oregon.

Most of that land is pretty unproductive and won't generate anywhere near enough sales tax revenue to pay for its upkeep. So unless Idaho wants to increase statewide taxes, you'd see crumbing roads and infrastructure under Idaho governance and the place would probably wind up in an even bigger economic death spiral.

All those endless paved roads in eastern Oregon won't pay for themselves.

[ejisme]

FWIW - The TV news in Boise said earlier this week the Idaho legislature is going to discuss the options and impacts of pursuing the adjustment of the State of Idaho into the Eastern Oregon counties. Just some first steps, and maybe they'll say 'hell no,' but it's being discussed at the state level at least, and not just in Eastern Oregon.

[redguard57]

Originally Posted by ejisme

FWIW - The TV news in Boise said earlier this week the Idaho legislature is going to discuss the options and impacts of pursuing the adjustment of the State of Idaho into the Eastern Oregon counties. Just some first steps, and maybe they'll say 'hell no,' but it's being discussed at the state level at least, and not just in Eastern Oregon.

It's legally possible. Both state legislatures have to vote to approve the change including get it past both governors potential veto, and then get the U.S. House and Senate to vote on it & approve, & avoid a presidential veto. Then it would be official.

Like I said the Democrats would love this. It secures them 2 senate seats they would certainly never lose for the foreseeable future, Oregon would lose 1 House seat/electoral vote but it would makes all of Oregon's remaining seats safe or lean D. As it stands, both senate seats are lean D but not completely safe if the Republicans could ever put up a decent candidate. In the House, Oregon has 3 safe D seats, 1 safe R seat, 1 lean D seat, and 1 swing-slight-lean-R seat. Democrats would love to have 4 safe seats and 1 lean D seat out of Oregon, and offload their red seat onto Idaho. Idaho gains another safe R seat and 1 electoral vote which doesn't change the game for them, except in rare scenario where the presidential election might be decided by 1 electoral vote.

It would also off-load a ton of the Republican opposition in the state legislature. The Democrats would be able to do whatever they wanted at the state level this way.

I would definitely take the deal where I trade one electoral vote for one House seat.

[redguard57]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

It would probably be a net loss financially for Idaho. Because they would be taking over responsibility for a lot of infrastructure that isn't actually generating much if any income to support the state budget. Especially if all the rural folk out there evade ID sales taxes by driving west to shop in Oregon.

Most of that land is pretty unproductive and won't generate anywhere near enough sales tax revenue to pay for its upkeep. So unless Idaho wants to increase statewide taxes, you'd see crumbing roads and infrastructure under Idaho governance and the place would probably wind up in an even bigger economic death spiral.

All those endless paved roads in eastern Oregon won't pay for themselves.

Not to mention responsibility for dealing with more wildfires. Idaho already has plenty of wildfire-prone territory as it is.

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by redguard57

It's legally possible. Both state legislatures have to vote to approve the change including get it past both governors potential veto, and then get the U.S. House and Senate to vote on it & approve, & avoid a presidential veto. Then it would be official.

Like I said the Democrats would love this. It secures them 2 senate seats they would certainly never lose for the foreseeable future, Oregon would lose 1 House seat/electoral vote but it would makes all of Oregon's remaining seats safe or lean D. As it stands, both senate seats are lean D but not completely safe if the Republicans could ever put up a decent candidate. In the House, Oregon has 3 safe D seats, 1 safe R seat, 1 lean D seat, and 1 swing-slight-lean-R seat. Democrats would love to have 4 safe seats and 1 lean D seat out of Oregon, and offload their red seat onto Idaho. Idaho gains another safe R seat and 1 electoral vote which doesn't change the game for them, except in rare scenario where the presidential election might be decided by 1 electoral vote.

It would also off-load a ton of the Republican opposition in the state legislature. The Democrats would be able to do whatever they wanted at the state level this way.

I would definitely take the deal where I trade one electoral vote for one House seat.

It will never happen because selling off 2/3 of the state would be an enormously unpopular notion for the majority of Oregonians. I don't know if any statewide polling has ever been done, but I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of Oregonians oppose the idea. The only reason it gets any oxygen at all is because a few extremely sparsely populated counties have disgruntled conservatives who make a lot of noise because they are old and retired and have nothing else to do. But they are a minority even in those counties. And all told, don't even amount to the population of one small suburb. Most people aren't particularly political, even in eastern Oregon.

If you put it to a referendum in Oregon it would probably go down to defeat with the biggest margin of defeat of any statewide referendum in the history of the state. So an idea that unpopular is not something the state legislature or governor is going to go near with a 10 foot pole.

[ejisme]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

It will never happen because selling off 2/3 of the state would be an enormously unpopular notion for the majority of Oregonians. I don't know if any statewide polling has ever been done, but I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of Oregonians oppose the idea. The only reason it gets any oxygen at all is because a few extremely sparsely populated counties have disgruntled conservatives who make a lot of noise because they are old and retired and have nothing else to do. But they are a minority even in those counties. And all told, don't even amount to the population of one small suburb. Most people aren't particularly political, even in eastern Oregon.

If you put it to a referendum in Oregon it would probably go down to defeat with the biggest margin of defeat of any statewide referendum in the history of the state. So an idea that unpopular is not something the state legislature or governor is going to go near with a 10 foot pole.

I don't know if it's just a few Old Codger with nothing better to do.

11 of 15 Eastern Oregon Counties Have Already Voted for a “Greater” Idaho

https://www.greateridaho.org/11-of-1...greater-idaho/

I'm not sure it would be a huge No vote if put up for a referendum. Plenty of Western Oregonians would probably vote yes, just so they'd stop hearing about the complaints from Eastern Oregon. Still... it will be a hard sell at the state level and for the governors, even before it would go to the national level for debate, vote and unlikely approval. I don't see it happening anytime soon, if ever.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

............All those endless paved roads in eastern Oregon won't pay for themselves.

So, you are unaware that local people pay for their own local roads? The people pf Portland are not paying for any roads in Eastern Oregon. I-84 through eastern Oregon is federally paid for.

Highway 20 looks like no one is paying to take care of it, so no difference there if no maintenance money comes from Portland.

The state closed down most of the rest areas and snow parks east of the Cascades, so no loss there for lack of funding from Portland.

And all a mote point because Idaho does not want to take on parts of Oregon and definitely does not want Eastern Washington. Figure out some other solution to your problem

[Syringaloid]

This will NEVER happen. Besides, the handful of government officials in Idaho who are in favor of this are white "christian" nationalists.

Here are two of the most vocal...terrible people:
Reps. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, and Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls.

[rkcarguy]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

So much nonsense here to unpack.

First, what are these state administered and funded "progressive socialist entitlements" of which you speak? Remember, if you are complaining about Portland voters then we are talking about STATE programs here, not Federal programs like the Affordable Care Act or pandemic relief. What kind of state-based "socialism" is soaking up all your state income tax dollars?

Second, your crappy local roads are not the fault of Portland voters. They are the fault of your own county voters who refuse to raise property taxes to pay for local roads. So put that on the voters in Douglas or Curry or Josephine County, not liberal Portlanders. Local roads are a local responsibility. Always have been and always will be. It is your choice if you want to exchange low taxes for crappy gravel roads, poor schools, and inadequate fire and police service. That seems to be a choice that many rural southern Oregonians are willing to make. Just have the integrity not to whine about it.

Third, Portland voters and public opinion has absolutely NOTHING to do with habitat protections in national forests. That is all Federal policy governed by Washington DC. Spotted owl? That was all Federal. Liberal Portland voters had absolutely nothing to do with it. That was the Forest Service following national environmental laws that were actually signed into law by Richard Nixon.

Fourth, I grew up in rural Oregon in the 1970s and the reason so many mills closed back then was because private timber companies were making more money exporting raw logs to Asia than milling them locally. And a lot of small mills also closed because the timber industry also consolidated and does most of its milling in larger regional mills than small rural ones.

The fact of the matter is that urban areas subsidize rural areas, both in Oregon and every other state in the country. That is because urban areas are both more productive and more efficient than rural areas. And it isn't just the US. It is the same everywhere else in the world too.

My point was simply that liberal, big city policies don't work for rural areas, yet the big city population rules the entire state by majority voter population. Some of those policies make rural areas no longer financially viable in many aspects, and then the big city money goes out to support rural areas that have become poverty stricken due to those policies.