KCRag Forum

Why St. Louis Should Move to Illinois

Would the rest of Missouri let St. Louis go? It would be losing direct claim to the beloved Cardinals, the fabulous St. Louis Art Museum (home of the world’s largest collection of Max Beckmanns), and the state’s only abortion clinic (yes, really). Nonetheless, says George Connor, a political science professor at Missouri State University, “a good portion of the state would be happy to be rid of them. Many people, true or not, thinks the state wastes too much money on St. Louis. There would be a wry smile in a lot of out-state Missouri if that proposal came forward.”

It won’t, of course. Which leaves the question: Why can’t St. Louis (and Kansas City) have their own gun laws, ones more suitable to their urban circumstances? Forget about it, says Connor. The cities are granted leeway on some issues, but not guns. Not because state legislators have any fondness for big-city gangbangers, but because they want visitors to St. Louis to be armed against them. “At the end of the day, any legislation restricting guns, period, is difficult to do in Missouri, because it’s: ‘I need to be able to carry a gun in St. Louis to defend myself,’ ” Connor explains. The right to carry a gun in one’s car sans permit “may have started out about shooting coyotes in your field, but it’s become about self-defense. Even in St. Louis, where [Missourians] might want police to confiscate guns, it’s: ‘I don’t want them to take my gun.’ ”

Basically arguing that KC and St. Louis have become so unlike the rest of MO, they should be allowed to set their own laws, especially gun laws.

Can we join Iowa?

Donate southern 3rd of MO to Arkansas.

If I'm reading this right, it's basically saying we need to take guns away from black people. Who gets pulled over at shockingly disproportionate rates?

Actually, the St. Louis and Kansas City metros should just form their own city-states and not be part of Illinois, Missouri, or Kansas. It will never happen because the states would never allow KC or StL to leave for financial reasons.

You want to stick it to the conservative legislatures and rural city-hating voters, threaten to form city-states. This would deprive Missouri of the majority of its' tax revenue since the St. Louis and KC metros contribute the most to the state, and since the majority of GDP comes from these two metros. Same with Kansas, a huge portion of the state budget comes from the Kansas suburbs of the KC Metro.

The Kansas suburbs have more economically in common with KCMO and the Missouri suburbs than they do with most of the rest of Kansas. Suburban residents on the Kansas side also tend to be more moderate politically than most of the rural elected representatives in the Kansas state legislature.

The states of Kansas and Missouri would be hurt financially because these two metros contribute the most to state roads, bridges, schools, and government. Even if the metro populations leaving to join city-states wouldn't make up half of the state populations (if would depend on how the breakdown of new city-state borders would fall), the economic parts would be close to that because of the businesses that would be lost in addition to income and sales taxes. Rural residents don't realize how much of their infrastructure and services are paid for by city residents.

Without the large economies of these metros, many state roads would go unpaved, and would probably have to revert to gravel roads.

KCMO and the Missouri suburbs alone would have larger city-state populations than several existing US states do now. I'm guessing the Missouri side of the Metro has around 1.1 million at minimum:

Rhode Island 1,055,173
Montana 1,023,579
Delaware 935,614
South Dakota 853,175
North Dakota 739,482
Alaska 736,732
District of Columbia 658,893
Vermont 626,562
Wyoming 584,153

If the KC Metro formed a city state of KCMO, Overland Park, and the remaining Kansas and Missouri suburbs, the population (2.1 million) would be greater than the aforementioned, and:

New Mexico 2,085,572
Nebraska 1,881,503
West Virginia 1,850,326
Idaho 1,634,464
Hawaii 1,419,561
Maine 1,330,089
New Hampshire 1,326,813

The KC Metro has a bigger GDP than 16 US states.

If the Kansas suburbs in the KC Metro left Kansas and joined a city state, the KC Metro GDP would most likely be larger than the GDP of the State of Kansas, because Kansas would lose a great deal of its' GDP when the Kansas suburbs would leave.

KC Metro GDP (2014): 117,321
Kansas GDP (2015 projected): 149,153

chingon wrote:Can we join Iowa?

If Gibraltar can still be a part of England, why can't KC join, say, Massachusetts?

.

pash wrote:How about Hawaii? Might help nail down that convention hotel. Also, pineapple and smoked spam could be a Z-man killer.

I like it, the QT's could start serving spam musubi and P.O.G Juice straight out of fountain.

FangKC wrote: KCMO and the Missouri suburbs alone would have larger city-state populations than several existing US states do now. I'm guessing the Missouri side of the Metro has around 1.1 million at minimum:

Rhode Island 1,055,173
Montana 1,023,579
Delaware 935,614
South Dakota 853,175
North Dakota 739,482
Alaska 736,732
District of Columbia 658,893
Vermont 626,562
Wyoming 584,153

If the KC Metro formed a city state of KCMO, Overland Park, and the remaining Kansas and Missouri suburbs, the population (2.1 million) would be greater than the aforementioned, and:

New Mexico 2,085,572
Nebraska 1,881,503
West Virginia 1,850,326
Idaho 1,634,464
Hawaii 1,419,561
Maine 1,330,089
New Hampshire 1,326,813

The KC Metro has a bigger GDP than 16 US states.

If the Kansas suburbs in the KC Metro left Kansas and joined a city state, the KC Metro GDP would most likely be larger than the GDP of the State of Kansas, because Kansas would lose a great deal of its' GDP when the Kansas suburbs would leave.

KC Metro GDP (2014): 117,321
Kansas GDP (2015 projected): 149,153

Outside of KCK/OP/PV/Leawood, I think the other KS/MO suburbs would vote to stay in their respective states. I don't get the vibe that Lee's Summit, Blue Springs, Independence or Olathe would tie themselves to the city-state. I don't know about St. Louis.

Outside of KCK/OP/PV/Leawood, I think the other KS/MO suburbs would vote to stay in their respective states. I don't get the vibe that Lee's Summit, Blue Springs, Independence or Olathe would tie themselves to the city-state. I don't know about St. Louis.

I wouldn't include OP and Leawood with that. Overall I think those are rather conservative areas. Not quite sure about PV. I think KC North would be rather conservative also. So basically you would have KCMO south of the river and KCK.

My point was that suburban communities are more economically and politically tied to the Metro than they are to their respective states.

Yes, some parts of the Metro are more politically conservative than others. However, it depends on what aspects one is talking about. Many people in Johnson County, for example, may be fiscally conservative, but more socially liberal than their rural counterparts in other parts of Kansas.

chaglang wrote:

chingon wrote:Can we join Iowa?

If Gibraltar can still be a part of England, why can't KC join, say, Massachusetts?

I'd take Missourah hillbillies over Massholes any day, but I see your point.

Maybe we compromise with Minnesota?

My point was that suburban communities are more economically and politically tied to the Metro than they are to their respective states.

Economically I would tend to agree. But politically I do not see much of a tie.

Then explain to me how Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, got elected as governor of Kansas, and Dennis Moore, a Democrat, got elected as Congressman?

They weren't elected by rural Kansas voters. The only reason they were able to be elected in Kansas is because of suburban voters in the KC Metro, who are more politically moderate. Kansas is a Republican State. For these two politicians to get elected and re-elected, they had to have people crossing party lines.

Suburban Kansas voters are also more likely to raise their own taxes than Kansans in general. This is especially true in Johnson County.

Local political reporters consistently state on public affairs talk shows that suburban Kansas voters in the KC Metro are more politically moderate than the rest of Kansas.

One, look at who replaced Moore. Moore didn't talk like a Democrat and when he was first elected the political scene was different, same place but different time. And we know how hard it is to displace a sitting pol. Sure it is done but not that often.
Two, look at who replaced Sebelius.

It's much like in MO with the election of Nixon. Personalities have more at play in local politics than political party talk. Not say the talk doesn't come into play but personality is more important.

True, suburbs are somewhat more moderate as a whole but remember it isn't so much crossing party lines but there is a large number of people who are independent and that is where the personality comes into play.

st. louis is closer to springfield, illinois than jeff city (and it's just "easier" to get there), and way closer to springfield than chicago. dick durbin, the senate minority whip, is from metropolitan st. louis. also, mass transit has far more support at the state level than missouri. its why metrolink runs through cornfields in far eastern metro east.

on the other hand, the illinois democratic party is a mess. maybe the illinois republican party can get it together as a truly moderate force and shape up the dems, but southern illinois isn't going to let the illinois republican party be reasonable. the state has issues, and is sort of a device that chicagoland abuses. i can totally see chicago running roughshod over st. louis in the capital building. also, illinois property taxes.

i really don't have an overwhelming desire to be an illinois resident, but it would be interesting and make some historical sense.

FangKC wrote:Then explain to me how Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, got elected as governor of Kansas, and Dennis Moore, a Democrat, got elected as Congressman?

They weren't elected by rural Kansas voters. The only reason they were able to be elected in Kansas is because of suburban voters in the KC Metro, who are more politically moderate. Kansas is a Republican State. For these two politicians to get elected and re-elected, they had to have people crossing party lines.

Suburban Kansas voters are also more likely to raise their own taxes than Kansans in general. This is especially true in Johnson County.

Local political reporters consistently state on public affairs talk shows that suburban Kansas voters in the KC Metro are more politically moderate than the rest of Kansas.

same way Chris Christie and Mitt Romney got elected as governors of solid Blue states

aknowledgeableperson wrote:

Outside of KCK/OP/PV/Leawood, I think the other KS/MO suburbs would vote to stay in their respective states. I don't get the vibe that Lee's Summit, Blue Springs, Independence or Olathe would tie themselves to the city-state. I don't know about St. Louis.

I wouldn't include OP and Leawood with that. Overall I think those are rather conservative areas. Not quite sure about PV. I think KC North would be rather conservative also. So basically you would have KCMO south of the river and KCK.

North OP/PV/Mission/Roeland Park leans blue. Mission Hills is red though.

KCMax wrote:

aknowledgeableperson wrote:

Outside of KCK/OP/PV/Leawood, I think the other KS/MO suburbs would vote to stay in their respective states. I don't get the vibe that Lee's Summit, Blue Springs, Independence or Olathe would tie themselves to the city-state. I don't know about St. Louis.

I wouldn't include OP and Leawood with that. Overall I think those are rather conservative areas. Not quite sure about PV. I think KC North would be rather conservative also. So basically you would have KCMO south of the river and KCK.

North OP/PV/Mission/Roeland Park leans blue. Mission Hills is red though.

In Kansas, I think the Mission Hills version of red is really a more old-school Republican brand of red (for the state of Kansas). There are more Libertarian leaning, anti-tax folks than there are anti-abortion, religion in politics folks. Historically, I think education funding has been a pretty popular platform for Mission Hills Republicans.

kansas city and st. louis should not be in the same state. i say this because they should be the center-capitals of their own respective states that cross over the current state lines in each metro area. this outstate tug of war would be less of an issue if states were subservient to their economic engine-cores. "missouri" should not exist, and neither should jeff city (at least as a center of political power).

remember this map?


http://mentalfloss.com

although, kansas city should be the undesputed capital and center of it's own region. i've also seen the st. louis state called "cahokia" and i think the KC state "kaw." perhaps i drew up a map years ago.

this map gets totally messy in the midwest, though. milwaukee and chicago in the same state? naw. pittsburgh over cleveland??? get out of here. columbus over cincy? cincy is old school midwest and developed it's own early banking hinterland like chicago and st. louis.