Quote:
Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp
As someone from the southest of SoCal, I'm pretty fine with Sacramento being our capital. The Bay Area and LA are inevitably going to disagree about nearly everything, and they are near equal in prominence so it wouldn't be good to favor one over the other. It's best to have a neutral party to resolve disputes. A location in the Central Valley is far enough removed from both to prevent the local politics from effecting state decision making.
[...]
So if we had to do it all over again, I'd still recommend Sacramento for the CA state capital.
|
I agree with you. In my 52 years of life, northern California and the Bay Area have always seemed to despise LA. Owens Valley people hated us for "stealing" their water (though over the years LA has relied less on their water, now only a third of the city of LA's water comes from the Owens Valley), and San Francisco/Bay Area has always claimed that LA gets preference in tax-funded infrastructure and other things. I remember in the mid-1990s, my sister's friend, who is from the Bay Area (Albany, north of Berkeley), complained that the Cypress Structure of the Nimitz Freeway that collapsed in Oakland during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake still hadn't been rebuilt or permanently rerouted, whereas the section of the Santa Monica Freeway that collapsed in LA during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake was rebuilt and reopened within 3 months.
So yeah, Sacramento seems to be a good neutral place for California's capital, although people who have been moving there from the Bay Area in the last 10 years or so seem to claim Sacramento as being part of the Bay Area now, which is somehow ironic, being that many people from the Bay Area seem to look down on the city of Sacramento.