Straight Dope Message Board

[Bijou Drains]

They have only 14k people in 8000 square miles. The white folks not happy that Navajos now run the county.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...lly-wins-power

[HurricaneDitka]

"take their tax base with them" seems to be the chief concern of the liberals here.

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

"take their tax base with them" seems to be the chief concern of the liberals here.

Which Liberals ?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

"take their tax base with them" seems to be the chief concern of the liberals here.

You're the second post in the thread. What are you basing your belief of what the liberal here on going to say on? With quotes?

[Broomstick]

Oh, lordy, lordy - white folks afraid the Navajo will do to them what they've been doing to the Navajo for centuries...

[bobot]

If we can't gerrymander, and Navajo backed candidates win elections then we'll break off and form a white county of our own. Republicans really really hate when the voice of the people is heard, and they weren't able to supress it this time.
From the first paragraph of the OP's linked article:
"Harkening back to the tactics of white-flight segregationists, a Utah state representative has proposed that a heavily white region within Navajo-majority San Juan County secede and form its own county after Navajo-backed candidates for county offices won historic majorities in 2018's elections. That election outcome was the byproduct of a successful lawsuit that struck down the racially gerrymandered districts for county commission and school board that had enabled candidates backed by the white minority to maintain a stranglehold on local government for decades.​"

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

You're the second post in the thread. What are you basing your belief of what the liberal here on going to say on? With quotes?

HD lives in Utah I believe, so I assume that's what he means by "here".

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

HD lives in Utah I believe, so I assume that's what he means by "here".

So all 11 liberals in Utah managed to accomplish this? Wow, they must be wily strategists.

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

So all 11 liberals in Utah managed to accomplish this? Wow, they must be wily strategists.

Accomplish what?

[Ravenman]

Look, I don’t know jack about this issue other than what I read in the OP and the link. But at first glance, it looks like apartheid has ended in one country in Utah... and the first reply is a criticism of liberals? WTF?

[MichaelEmouse]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

"take their tax base with them" seems to be the chief concern of the liberals here.

it really would be horrible if our holy white race kept being kept down by having to share anything with those vile filthy mongrels

https://imgur.com/gallery/tdm8nIJ

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Thank God we have HD here to 1. faithfully label people as "liberals" for us. Constantly. and 2. Tell us what they think! Hurrah!

[Chronos]

Yeah, how dare those Native Americans come to our country that we created out of nothing on uninhabited land and think they're allowed to have a say in it! They should all go back to where they came from.

[Snowboarder Bo]

The 21st century GOP credo: if we can't win by playing the game following the rules, we'll step outside the game to use the rules to effect a win.

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

"take their tax base with them" seems to be the chief concern of the liberals here.

You don't think it would be problematic if every well off neighborhood can just decide to be their own county?
From the article:

Normally, splitting an existing county would require supporters to gather signatures from one-quarter of residents in each portion of the proposed division. Voters in both sections of the proposed split would also have to approve the plan in a referendum. However, GOP state Rep. Kim Coleman has introduced a bill to drop the requirement that voters in both sections of the proposed division favor a plan to split the county.

Does that sound like a good idea to you?

[PastTense]

8,000 square miles is a lot for a county. The whole state of Massachusetts is less than that.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

HD lives in Utah I believe, so I assume that's what he means by "here".

This is correct.

[eschereal]

HD's “take their tax base with them” was from the linked Kos article.

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by PastTense

8,000 square miles is a lot for a county. The whole state of Massachusetts is less than that.

Idaho County Idaho is 8500 sq mi; Harney County Oregon is 10000+ sq mi, as is Sweetwater County Wyoming; Nye County is over 18K, and San Bernardino is over 20K. There are some counties of immodest size in the West, which tend to be more land than people.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Look, I don’t know jack about this issue other than what I read in the OP and the link. But at first glance, it looks like apartheid has ended in one country in Utah... and the first reply is a criticism of liberals? WTF?

"Apartheid"? At least you were right about one thing: you don't know jack about this issue.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

"Apartheid"? At least you were right about one thing: you don't know jack about this issue.

I know that liberals aren’t the problem here. So that’s one thing.

[running coach]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

"take their tax base with them" seems to be the chief concern of the liberals here.

From the link.

The proponent of this plan, state Rep. Phil Lyman, isn't just a Republican legislator. He was also a San Juan County commissioner who chose to run for the state legislature in 2018 after his illegally gerrymandered district was struck down. Lyman claims he's not necessarily in favor of secession and merely thinks it should be debated, but he's consistently (and baselessly) rejected the court's ruling striking down the districts as illegitimate.

That's your definition of a "liberal"?

Ah, the Party of "Law and Order".

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

"take their tax base with them" seems to be the chief concern of the liberals here.

So the whites in the county have been running the entire county essentially forever, and neither they nor the Navajos tried to secede. Do I have that right?

But the moment the whites lose an election, they want to secede from the county.

Maybe you can explain why this isn't the over-the-top bad-faith response that it looks like it is. If they can't run the game, they're gonna take their ball and leave.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

"Apartheid"? At least you were right about one thing: you don't know jack about this issue.

Please help us understand the issues, then. All I've got to go on is the Daily Kos article, which quotes two GOP politicians who seem to favour splitting the county. I'm wondering where the liberals you mention come into the discussion?

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Please help us understand the issues, then. All I've got to go on is the Daily Kos article, which quotes two GOP politicians who seem to favour splitting the county. I'm wondering where the liberals you mention come into the discussion?

What is a “liberal” in Utah?

Salt Lake Trib story might give a better feel for the subtleties. Apparently some SJ County residents feel that having two Navajo Democrats on the three member commission is horrifying.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Please help us understand the issues, then. All I've got to go on is the Daily Kos article, which quotes two GOP politicians who seem to favour splitting the county. I'm wondering where the liberals you mention come into the discussion?

You first.
You are the one who dragged "liberals" into this thread. Why don't you point out where you got your weird idea?

[bobot]

I'm pretty sure "liberals" were invoked in the 2nd post.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

"take their tax base with them" seems to be the chief concern of the liberals here.

Eh? It's right there in Hurricane Ditka's post #2. I read it that he was saying that it was Liberals in Utah who are upset. If that's not what he was saying, what was he saying? I am simply having trouble following the exchange and am seeking clarification?

[Northern Piper]

Then, in post 7, CarnalK also seeks clarification: did HD mean "liberals here on the board," or when he said "here" did he mean in Utah?

Originally Posted by CarnalK

HD lives in Utah I believe, so I assume that's what he means by "here".

[Northern Piper]

And finally, in post # 17, HD quote CarnalK's post and seems to me to confirm that by "here" he's talking about liberals in Utah:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

This is correct.

So I'm still puzzled by his comment, as I've read the two articles posters have linked to, and haven't found any specific mention of liberals, only Republicans?

[don't mind me]

n/m

[eschereal]

nm

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

So the whites in the county have been running the entire county essentially forever, and neither they nor the Navajos tried to secede. Do I have that right?

1) If you think the San Juan County government is "running the entire county", you clearly don't understand the dynamic there. Here's a breakdown of land ownership/administration in San Juan County:

The majority of the land (approx. 72%) is administered by federal and tribal agencies. Land ownership/administration within San Juan County is broken down as follows (acres, % of total): BLM 2,074,247, 41%; Indian Reservation 1,220,846, 23%; National Parks Service 587,375, 10%; U.S.F.S 450,549, 9%; State of Utah 406,415, 8%; Private 406,367, 8%, and Private Indian Trust Funds 25,117, 1%.

How much authority do you imagine the San Juan County Commission has over the Navajo Nation lands, or the BLM lands, or the National Parks?

AFAIK, San Juan County is the 2nd largest county in the whole country, with a shitload of intersecting land management issues. If it chose to subdivide a bit, that would not be a bad thing IMHO.

2) Why would the Navajos want to secede? They want to prevent the non-Native portions from seceding, for the "tax base".

Perhaps a brief discussion on secession is in order. If, say, Quebec wanted to secede from Canada, or Scotland from the UK, who thinks it appropriate for the rest of Canada, or the rest of the UK to have the power to veto that decision? What about when a nation wants to leave the EU? Should the rest of the EU get to vote on that too?

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

And finally, in post # 17, HD quote CarnalK's post and seems to me to confirm that by "here" he's talking about liberals in Utah:



So I'm still puzzled by his comment, as I've read the two articles posters have linked to, and haven't found any specific mention of liberals, only Republicans?

You read the SLTrib article posted? It contains "specific mention" of a number of (Utah) Democrats.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

1) If you think the San Juan County government is "running the entire county", you clearly don't understand the dynamic there. Here's a breakdown of land ownership/administration in San Juan County:



How much authority do you imagine the San Juan County Commission has over the Navajo Nation lands, or the BLM lands, or the National Parks?

AFAIK, San Juan County is the 2nd largest county in the whole country, with a shitload of intersecting land management issues. If it chose to subdivide a bit, that would not be a bad thing IMHO.

Not sure how any of this makes a difference. This thread isn't about how the Federal government owns large chunks of Western states.

2) Why would the Navajos want to secede? They want to prevent the non-Native portions from seceding, for the "tax base".

OK, so you're just repeating what you said up top. My response to it still stands, awaiting your rebuttal, if any.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Not sure how any of this makes a difference. This thread isn't about how the Federal government owns large chunks of Western states. OK, so you're just repeating what you said up top. My response to it still stands, awaiting your rebuttal, if any.

Care to lay out your position on secession in general? My view is that Quebec, Scotland, and the UK ought to be free to "take their ball and leave" if they so choose (and so should portions of San Juan County). What do you think about that though? Do you have a position that can be reasonably applied to all of those situations? Is there some nuance in San Juan County that merits a different set of principles in your opinion? Or do you always oppose secession? Or just when it's Republicans considering it?

[Northern Piper]

I'm bowing out of this thread. Too much hostility just for asking questions to try to understand what's going on.

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

You first.
You are the one who dragged "liberals" into this thread. Why don't you point out where you got your weird idea?

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Eh? It's right there in Hurricane Ditka's post #2. I read it that he was saying that it was Liberals in Utah who are upset. If that's not what he was saying, what was he saying? I am simply having trouble following the exchange and am seeking clarification?

Do we need to let the admins know there's something screwy going on with the quote feature, or did you both just happen to make the same quoting error one after the other?

It seems that neither of you is responding to the post in the quote box, so I'm confused.

[Ruken]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Care to lay out your position on secession in general? My view is that Quebec, Scotland, and the UK ought to be free to "take their ball and leave" if they so choose (and so should portions of San Juan County). What do you think about that though? Do you have a position that can be reasonably applied to all of those situations? Is there some nuance in San Juan County that merits a different set of principles in your opinion? Or do you always oppose secession? Or just when it's Republicans considering it?

JAQing is neither making an argument nor rebutting another's. Do you have any intention of explaining how your first contribution to this thread has anything to do with the topic at hand?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Care to lay out your position on secession in general? My view is that Quebec, Scotland, and the UK ought to be free to "take their ball and leave" if they so choose (and so should portions of San Juan County). What do you think about that though?

I can understand arguments why Scotland or Quebec may want to secede. The only reason apparent to me why the white Republican minority may want to secede is that their illegal grip on power has been struck down as racist.

If you want to add some good reasons why this is not as simple as some crusty white dudes getting upset about not being able to win crooked elections anymore, please go ahead.

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Care to lay out your position on secession in general? My view is that Quebec, Scotland, and the UK ought to be free to "take their ball and leave" if they so choose (and so should portions of San Juan County). What do you think about that though?

Your view lost the American Civil War so there's no point discussing what other countries might do about secession. Comparing a county splitting up with a country doing so is kind of dumb anyway, just way too many qualitative and quantitative differences.

[WillFarnaby]

A good move. If an ethnic minority within a jurisdiction would like to get out from under a majority not aligned with them, I encourage it. This goes for if the ethnic minority is black, Native American, Jewish, Palestinian, or white. Perhaps this last one makes me a white supremacist to some.

Same thing goes for non-ethnic minorities including ideological minorities, cultural minorities, or food-preference minorities.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Your view lost the American Civil War so there's no point discussing what other countries might do about secession. Comparing a county splitting up with a country doing so is kind of dumb anyway, just way too many qualitative and quantitative differences.

So political disputes should be settled by the results of brute force conflicts 150 years ago.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I can understand arguments why Scotland or Quebec may want to secede. The only reason apparent to me why the white Republican minority may want to secede is that their illegal grip on power has been struck down as racist.

If you want to add some good reasons why this is not as simple as some crusty white dudes getting upset about not being able to win crooked elections anymore, please go ahead.

Perhaps the whites do not agree with the political policies of the election winners?

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

A good move. If an ethnic minority within a jurisdiction would like to get out from under a majority not aligned with them, I encourage it.

While this sounds vaguely reasonable on the surface, it stinks to high heaven when the "get out from under" movement starts immediately after losing power for the first time in decades.

Your oppressors have barely had a chance to take roll call, ferchrissake.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Perhaps the whites do not agree with the political policies of the election winners?

Looking back on some history of the county, it appears one of the political positions of those who ended up being election winners was "please let us have an ambulance to get sick people to the hospital," which was opposed by the Powers that Be.

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

So political disputes should be settled by the results of brute force conflicts 150 years ago.

THIS political dispute HAS been settled by brute force 150 years ago. Or did I miss something? Can a state just vote to secede from the U.S.?

But my main point was that the lower down the governance level you go, the more ridiculous allowing free secession is.

[Bone]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

While this sounds vaguely reasonable on the surface, it stinks to high heaven when the "get out from under" movement starts immediately after losing power for the first time in decades.

Your oppressors have barely had a chance to take roll call, ferchrissake.

It doesn't appear to be an issue that was immediately raised after the results of the most recent election though. This article from 1997 talks about splitting this county, and a study that was conducted to look at the impact:

If San Juan was split along the reservation's border, the new south county would have $2.1 million - $434 per person - in operating capital in the year 2000, the study projected. The northern county would have almost four times that amount - $8.1 million.

Without a split, San Juan County would have $801 per person.

The 16-member committee, made up of American Indians and Anglos, met five times in 1995 and 1996 to discuss this issue. Its last act will be to decide what to do with the report, Lewis said.

Mark Maryboy, a San Juan County commissioner and the driving force behind the commissioning of the study, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

There are some other factors complicating the issue:

- A new county would have to establish, finance and maintain a sheriff's office.

But law enforcement jurisdictional issues in counties with Indian reservations are complex. Tribal police would be required to deal with the crime on the reservation unless an agreement was made with the county sheriff's office, according to the report.

- San Juan County has approximately $20 million in reserve funds. It is unclear how that money would be divvied up.

It could be economics driven, or it could be race driven, or some combination. But based on some of the history, it seems clear that the economics are at least part of the motivating issues.

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Ruken

JAQing is neither making an argument nor rebutting another's. Do you have any intention of explaining how your first contribution to this thread has anything to do with the topic at hand?

It's not really JAQ when one of my sentences starts out "My view is", is it? Anyways, here's a quote from the SLTrib article:

Reps. Patrice Arent and Jennifer Dailey-Provost said they’d be nervous about zeroing in on a single part of the county formation process without taking a more holistic look at it. For instance, they wondered about letting communities split off without giving those left behind a chance to weigh in on the changes, which might have a deep impact on their tax base and the financial health of their local government.

Care to guess which political party Patrice Arent and the woman with the hyphenated last name belong to?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Care to guess which political party Patrice Arent and the woman with the hyphenated last name belong to?

Who cares? Your knee-jerk criticism of non-conservatives is the least important issue here.