Hacker News Reader

Comment by Symbiote | Hacker News Reader

It says 400,000 in the article.

Which of course is a lie to over-exaggerate their influence -- if you add up the populations of the 12 counties on their map it's only 210k people, and obviously not everyone in those counties agrees with these stupid performative measures, so some number well under 200k is likely the real figure.

Malheur: 31k

Harney: 8k

Lake: 7k

Klamath: 68k

Grant: 7k

Baker: 16k

Wheeler: 2k

Jefferson: 24k

Sherman: 2k

Morrow: 12k

Union: 26k

Wallowa: 7k

https://www.oregon-demographics.com/counties_by_population

It'd likely end up like Brexit anyways - these areas don't appreciate just how much tax money is spent supporting them and their "independent" lifestyles. Changing their allegiance to a poorer, smaller state would result in a much lower quality of life for them.

If I was a resident of portland, I'd certinaly hope no state resources would be used to prevent or contain wildfires entirely within 'Greater Idaho' borders. It's their problem now, and they can raise taxes to deal with it.

I don't live there, so not really my business, but I picked a county at random from that list (Harney) and their county budget is almost $17M. Only $3M of their budget comes from local property taxes, something like $12M in governmental transfers.

> Revenues increased by $3,301,780. Expenditures increased by $1,727,698. This increase in revenue is due to the receipt of grant dollars from the Federal Delegation requests and State of Oregon fair disbursements. The Federal amount was $1,546,000 for communication upgrades through our Emergency Management Department. A new fund #105, the American Rescue Plan, brought in an additional $718,000 in grant revenue. We received $1M from the State of Oregon for fairgrounds infrastructure upgrades also included in the noted increase.

Just massively living off the government teat with no hint of irony.

https://www.co.harney.or.us/PDF_Files/Treasurer/Harney%20Cou...

You put a high value on dollar amounts. It seems you do not realize that money and services that come from far away are often ridiculously inefficient and reflect the priorities and concerns of those that retain control over the attached strings. Their concerns and their money priorities likely do not match the concerns or priorities of the locals. Worse, they can be repulsive, offensive, or run counter to the best interests of the locals rather than contribute to their welfare.

Predator controls. Forest and fire management. Being able to defend oneself (guns). State and federal control of school curriculum. These are all important to most of these rural counties and are not performed well or to their liking. Nor are they empowered to go their own way because these regulations are created at the state level.

It is quite logical for them to ignore "benefits" and money being offered for the things that could be life changing for the better.

They would be rather governed by Idaho, where many more people who live similar lives write those policies that affect them the most.

Just the most contrived nonsense that lets them keep their frontier mentality with no consideration to how much their lifestyles are subsidized by the people they loathe. It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

Actually seems fitting that the county I chose was where those morons had their national park takeover that got some of them killed. “How dare you pay us millions of dollars to maintain this land!” “Freedom!!!”

Helps if you actually read and respond to my points instead of broad brushing about the apparent irrationality you see. Most people are quite rational in their own sphere if you take the time to understand their perspective.

You are not understanding our point.

If these rural areas want to break away and go their own way, they wont have the resources to combat crisis on their own, they can't even do that with their current tax revenue and I don't imagine they are willing to quadruple their property taxes to do so.

I expect they'll whine and yell at other states if they need help. However I'd hope the gov of the remaining area of oregon would flatly tell them no, at least I would.

The apparent subsidies are not properly addressing their concerns. Thus, however much money it sent — it doesn't matter. How does this not address your point of "they are subsidized!!"?

Again. If the state policies prevent proper management of the resources, the money doesn't matter. It's misapplied.

The point that they don't have the resources. No, they don't have the resources to replicate what the state is doing. Parent's point is correct in that. But my point is that they don't WANT to replicate what the state is doing. It's misapplied. Thus, making the cost of the state programs irrelevant. You are assuming that everything on the budget is required to create a functional government. It's not.

I'm speaking strictly about emergency response such as fires, I'm not assuming 'Greater Idaho' is going to have a matching education or social services budget.

In other words those counties represent ~10% of Oregon's population.

and ~50-55% of the Oregon's land

Last I checked land does not vote and having more land does not make a person's opinion more important.

Yet we divide up political entities by what land you happened to live on. We have traditions to allow people within a region of land to self determine their government. Regardless of how many of them there are, exactly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com