In your opinion, should NYC be it’s on own state?

21 comments

1. No, Its just a normal city with a high population, plus many republicans would be against it due to New York being a pretty blue state which means 2 extra blue senators

2. What would be the point? Their infrastructure is wired to the rest of the state.

   Is there any point to even considering something so absurd?

3. No. That’s not how states work. It is a big city but it is just a city. Toledo, Ohio would never be its own state and population is not the determining factor.

4. many states have big cities mixed with smaller cities and rural areas. New York is no different.

5. Why would it need to be it’s own state? If I wanted a 51st state, I’ll split another state in half

6. No, it should not be its own state. The only people I hear regularly suggesting that are cranks who think that getting rid of NYC would somehow make this state some kind of republican stronghold.

7. As someone who was born in NYC, this seems weird to me. Like trying to make two separate people by chopping someone in half. NYC isn’t a complete place. It gets all its water from upstate and grows almost no food – basically has no resources of its own.

   And its success is totally based on its success. If businesses and people don’t want to be there, things fall apart because NYC is so expensive to run. This is what happened during the 70s. It was a downward spiral of people leaving, unemployment, cuts, violence, and more people leaving. They even had sanitation cuts. NYC’s population dropped for 10 years. Some areas in the Bronx lost 97% of their buildings. The city’s population in 1970 was higher then in 1990.

   The longest recession a US state ever had was 31 months. States are just more resilient and flexible. They can do things like show off some beautiful scenery and bring in the tourists to take advantage of their screaming deals.

8. What happens to Long Island?

9. Either way it a toilet … crime , homeless, hasn’t had any good leadership in 20 years

10. As someone from NYC, I don’t want it to be its own state. It’s not a thought that even occurs to me. The metro area already spans multiple states and I don’t know what we’d gain from it.

11. Most definitely not.

12. I am a firm believer of city-states, so yes.

    The entire metropolitan area of NYC in New York state should break-off to its own state, call it New Amsterdam all I care. Both would benefit because city taxes would stay in the city and state government can focus more on the other cities and state without dealing what the city wants, which tends to counter the rest of the state.

13. No

    You’ll occasionally hear an Upstater say they wish the city was its own thing but I don’t think they’re being entirely serious.

    I can’t recall anyone in the city expressing the sentiment to be a state.

    So if you come across an American feeling strongly about splitting NY in two, it’s for sure a minority viewpoint.. It’s a topic that barely even comes up much less has a movement one way or another

14. The metro area probably should be its own thing.

15. No. It would be worse for the city, and the greater state.

16. [deleted]

17. That would be pretty stupid. Everything they use (water, electricity, food , waste removal, etc) would have to be purchased from a different state.

18. No…. Why would it be? Why would every large city need to be its own state?

    Statehood doesn’t have much to do with population. Wyoming is a state.

19. No. City States are a horrible idea

20. In a way, yes. I’ve often thought large cities should have some degree of independence/self governance from the rest of the state. At the same time I think it’s a mistake to allow one large city to dominate an entire geographical state politically by virtue of it being a population and financial center.

21. God no.