BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KERO) — Kern County supervisors are exploring a proposal that would place Kern and dozens of other counties in a new state, separate from coastal California.

Kern County District 3 Supervisor Jeff Flores said the effort is about making sure the region’s industries and way of life are taken seriously by state leaders.

“So I want to use this exercise to get the attention of the lawmakers, of the governor, that Kern County matters, that our industries matter, that our way of life matters,” Flores said.

An analysis presented to the board found the proposed inland state would account for only about 15 percent of California’s current real GDP.

CSU Bakersfield economics professor Richard Gearhart said that number tells a stark story about what separation would actually mean for the region.

“If we were to secede and become our own state, would be about $500 billion with a B,” Gearhart said. “Kern County accounts for about $60 to $70 billion of that. So we would be about 1/10 of the state economy at that point. But the rest of California would be close to $3 trillion worth of GDP and we’d be cutting ourselves off from a highly educated workforce with lots of industry and those sorts of things.”

Gearhart said the proposed inland state would drop California from the fourth-largest economy in the world to roughly the 16th-largest state economy in the country — comparable to Missouri.

“We would lose a lot of economic opportunities, we would lose a lot of economic growth,” Gearhart said. “It would be essentially shooting ourselves in the foot were we to follow this through.”

Gearhart also warned the split would dramatically reduce the region’s workforce. He said inland California’s employment would fall from roughly 20 million employed people statewide to about 5 million — a reduction of approximately 13 million jobs.

“We would probably see a wave of businesses closing because they couldn’t absorb the loss of both workers and tax revenues from the state of California,” Gearhart said.

Gearhart said the proposed inland state would be left relying heavily on natural resources like agriculture and oil.

“There are no developed countries that are majority natural resource exporters, so we would be more considered to be closer towards a developing country than a developed country at that point,” Gearhart said.

He also raised the possibility of a Rust Belt-style economic decline taking hold in Central California if the split moved forward.

Gearhart warned that Kern County residents would likely face higher taxes to fund basic services.

“In the short term, we’d absolutely have to raise taxes to fund everyday amenities like schools, roads, police, firefighters—those sorts of things—and we don’t have the tax base for it,” Gearhart said.

He said that could include a new state income tax, sales taxes rising above 10 percent, and higher property taxes — all of which could accelerate population loss and further erode the tax base.

Dividing California’s existing assets, including water systems, debt, and statewide programs, would also be a massive undertaking, Gearhart said.

“It would be nearly impossible,” Gearhart said. “There would be lots of fights because existing treaties and agreements since the 1800s would be in place. So it would just be a long drawn out legal battle which would increase costs for everyday Californians.”

He said litigation alone could cost the proposed inland state several billion dollars.

Gearhart said he views the proposal as having no basis in economic analysis.

“It is solely for political theater,” Gearhart said.

Flores acknowledged the chances of an actual split are remote, saying the immediate goal is a stronger voice, not necessarily a new border.

“We want to work with California, not against California, and that goes both ways,” Flores said.

County staff will now draft a letter outlining the board’s position and look further into what a split could mean for Kern County. That letter is expected to return to supervisors at their next meeting on August 25.
Kern County supervisors are exploring a proposal that would place Kern and dozens of other counties in a new state, separate from coastal California.

Kern County District 3 Supervisor Jeff Flores said the effort is about making sure the region’s industries and way of life are taken seriously by state leaders.

“So I want to use this exercise to get the attention of the lawmakers, of the governor, that Kern County matters, that our industries matter, that our way of life matters,” Flores said.

An analysis presented to the board found the proposed inland state would account for only about 15 percent of California’s current real GDP.

CSU Bakersfield economics professor Richard Gearhart said that number tells a stark story about what separation would actually mean for the region.

“If we were to secede and become our own state, would be about $500 billion with a B,” Gearhart said. “Kern County accounts for about $60 to $70 billion of that. So we would be about 1/10 of the state economy at that point. But the rest of California would be close to $3 trillion worth of GDP and we’d be cutting ourselves off from a highly educated workforce with lots of industry and those sorts of things.”

Gearhart said the proposed inland state would drop California from the fourth-largest economy in the world to roughly the 16th-largest state economy in the country — comparable to Missouri.

“We would lose a lot of economic opportunities, we would lose a lot of economic growth,” Gearhart said. “It would be essentially shooting ourselves in the foot were we to follow this through.”

Gearhart also warned the split would dramatically reduce the region’s workforce. He said inland California’s employment would fall from roughly 20 million employed people statewide to about 5 million — a reduction of approximately 13 million jobs.

“We would probably see a wave of businesses closing because they couldn’t absorb the loss of both workers and tax revenues from the state of California,” Gearhart said.

Gearhart said the proposed inland state would be left relying heavily on natural resources like agriculture and oil.

“There are no developed countries that are majority natural resource exporters, so we would be more considered to be closer towards a developing country than a developed country at that point,” Gearhart said.

He also raised the possibility of a Rust Belt-style economic decline taking hold in Central California if the split moved forward.

Gearhart warned that Kern County residents would likely face higher taxes to fund basic services.

“In the short term, we’d absolutely have to raise taxes to fund everyday amenities like schools, roads, police, firefighters—those sorts of things—and we don’t have the tax base for it,” Gearhart said.

He said that could include a new state income tax, sales taxes rising above 10 percent, and higher property taxes — all of which could accelerate population loss and further erode the tax base.

Dividing California’s existing assets, including water systems, debt, and statewide programs, would also be a massive undertaking, Gearhart said.

“It would be nearly impossible,” Gearhart said. “There would be lots of fights because existing treaties and agreements since the 1800s would be in place. So it would just be a long drawn out legal battle which would increase costs for everyday Californians.”

He said litigation alone could cost the proposed inland state several billion dollars.

Gearhart said he views the proposal as having no basis in economic analysis.

“It is solely for political theater,” Gearhart said.

Flores acknowledged the chances of an actual split are remote, saying the immediate goal is a stronger voice, not necessarily a new border.

“We want to work with California, not against California, and that goes both ways,” Flores said.

County staff will now draft a letter outlining the board’s position and look further into what a split could mean for Kern County. That letter is expected to return to supervisors at their next meeting on August 25.

Stay in Touch with Us Anytime, Anywhere:

It wasn’t the most in-depth assessment offered by Colorado’s Quentin Gibson.

Still, when asked the difference between high school — where Gibson routinely put up video game numbers — and his first year in the CU football program, the second-year receiver was equally obvious and on-point.

“They move a lot faster,” Gibson said of the Division I defenders tasked with tracking him down.

The thing is, Gibson can move pretty fast, too.

Gibson showed flashes of his sizeable athletic ability last year, particularly as a returner on special teams. With some of the growing pains of adjusting to college life behind him, Gibson is vying for a role in the receiver rotation while making plans to be a more dangerous asset in the Buffaloes’ return game.

“Just take advantage of everything they give to me,” Gibson said. “Every opportunity, try to make a play. I wouldn’t say (last year) was humbling, because I wasn’t getting the ball before my senior year (of high school). When I’m not on the field, I’m able to watch the people that’s playing. Just learning from them.

“I’m going to show you all a lot more than last year. That was just a glimpse.”

By his own admission, Gibson said digesting the playbook last year was a challenge. That’s nothing out of the norm for first-year players, yet this year Gibson was challenged to learn an entirely new playbook featuring several more chapters. A year of experience has increased Gibson’s wisdom accordingly, though, and absorbing the voluminous tome that explains new offensive coordinator Brennan Marion’s Go-Go offense hasn’t been difficult so far.

“Last year, I had a little trouble with learning the plays first year in. It was hard for me,” Gibson said. “This year, coming in, it’s normal. The Go-Go offense is great. There’s about 800 plays.”

After biding his time at North Crowley (Texas) High School, Gibson flourished as a senior while helping his squad win the Class 6A state championship. Gibson recorded 181 receiving yards and three touchdowns on just seven receptions in the title game, finishing the season with 2,009 yards and 36 touchdown receptions. Gibson added a pair of rushing touchdowns, scored another on a punt return, and even threw a 74-yard touchdown in the state playoffs.