The Complexity of State Line Redistribution: Why Redrawing Borders Is More Than Just Moving

Contrary to the easy solution that many advocate – simply moving to a neighboring state – the reality of state line redistribution is fraught with numerous complexities and challenges. The argument that people in Oregon should just move to Idaho instead of attempting to redraw state lines is simplistic and overlooks significant practical, political, and economic factors.

Why it’s Easier to Complain than to Move

The notion that people would prefer staying and complaining over moving to a more favorable jurisdiction is a common perspective. Yet, the issue goes beyond mere complaints. Residents may realistically be afraid of disruption and the loss of their way of life, community, and essential services. When they are asked to leave their homes, roots, and businesses, the fear of being controlled by larger, coastal populations is profound.

Resisting Coastal Domination

The desire for autonomy from the perceived control of coastal elites exists, but moving en masse to Idaho is far from a trivial decision. Drawing parallels to recent similar movements, where the reverse situation (blue regions wanting to join together) didn't result in similar relocation arguments illustrates the self-serving nature of some of the complaints. If the solution were so straightforward, it would likely be met with less resistance.

The Reality of Living on Either Side of the Mountains

Washington, Oregon, and California showcase a stark contrast between the coastal and eastern regions, especially when viewed from the mountains. The weather, climate, culture, landscape, and people are worlds apart. Simply moving from one side to the other means leaving behind everything familiar, including jobs, businesses, and farmland. Even if one could find a buyer for their property in Oregon and find something in Idaho, the process would be complex and costly.

Agricultural Challenges and Land Dynamics

For those in Oregon who are involved in agriculture, the situation becomes even more challenging. A 10,000-acre ranch in Oregon is a source of pride and livelihood. It’s much more than just property; it’s a way of life. The idea of simply moving this ranch to Idaho is a non-starter due to several key factors:

Market Dynamics: Moving such a significant piece of land involves a complex market environment. If a mass exodus occurs, it could lead to a price crash in Oregon, making it difficult to sell, and at the same time, a price increase in Idaho due to higher demand. Market Fit: The land in Idaho may not be suitable for the same agricultural practices as in Oregon. A state line move often means a shift in agro-climatic conditions, soil quality, and existing infrastructure such as irrigation systems. Cost and Economic Viability: Moving a business of that scale would incur significant costs, including transportation, labor, and new investment in infrastructure. Even if the land is purchased, it may not provide the same income or operational efficiency as before.

Furthermore, many who are invested in agriculture tend to be more conservative, looking for stability and control over their environment. Shifting to a new state carries risks, particularly for those who view the current situation as untenable.

In conclusion, the notion that people can simply move to a neighboring state to resolve their grievances is overly simplistic. The complexities involved in state line redistribution, including economic, social, and political factors, make such a move far from a straightforward solution. The desire for political autonomy and a better way of life is understandable, but the reality of relocation is far more challenging and less practical than it appears.