Bozoulian | Guest Column by Pete Talbot
Bridging Montana’s Rural/Urban Divide
By Pete Talbot, 4-15-06
Another battle shaping up in the New West could be urban v. rural. While the bigger cities are worried about too much growth, the smaller towns are doing everything they can just to survive.Rural folk don't think that urban folk really care about what's going on beyond those big-city borders. The cities just gobble up the small towns that are close by. Those that are too far away, well, city folk can't be troubled.
The farmers, ranchers, loggers and miners think city folk just like to sue -- over coal and timber, wolves and grizzlies, gold and silver -- just about anything.
While people living in the city have an almost mythical view of what goes on in the prairies and mountains. Those cowboys and farm hands and roughnecks will continue on in their colorful ways.
We've seen this tension before: when the smelters in Butte and Anaconda spewed toxic waste into the Deer Lodge Valley, or the fights over water and land, or when the college kids in the cities start protesting or joining PETA.
Fortunately, we tend to get beyond these problems and continue to work together as Montanans. Let's hope it stays this way because the truth is; we need each other, now more than ever.
Our state government -- that's right, government -- can help. I mean the legislature, governor's office and the agencies under them. There are things that our government can do to encourage urban and rural partnerships. There are also times when our government needs to be aware of the distinctions between urban and rural.
The governor and legislature need to advance sustainable farm-to-city relationships and create local markets for food, biodiesel, ethanol, wind power, and value-added natural resources. They also have to push for smart growth legislation that is flexible -- something for the cities that are bursting at the seams and something for the small towns that are dying.
The things that cities offer rural areas -- technical innovations, university research in agriculture and business, touring theater and art programs -- need to be adequately funded.
Our legislators must look beyond the old biases and cultivate a long-term strategy for our farms, ranches, small towns and growing cities. They can't kowtow to the short-term interests of corporate lobbyists.
The fact is, most Montanans have the same goals: we want a decent life for ourselves and our kids, we want jobs that reward us, and we want to raise our families with some semblance of Montana values. And we'd like some recreation from time-to-time, whether it's going to Grizzly/Bobcat ball games or backpacking in the Bob Marshall Wilderness.
I can't imagine Montana or any western state without its rural landscapes and small towns. I like to think that rural Montana enjoys the entertainment, retail and cultural aspects of our cities.
By being creative, enlightened leadership from rural and urban communities can map a course that's sustainable and egalitarian. In these uncertain times of growth and change, we must remember that we're all in this together.
[End of article]
Just in case this article doesn't create a storm of comments as it might have if you had written a spiteful, belligerent article on the same topic, let me thank you a 100 times for stating the absolute truth so clearly, "we're all in this together." thankX100
Comment By Dan, 4-16-06America as a whole was been roughly 3/4th urban, 1/4 rural (according to census definition of it) since World War II with a slow creep of more urbanism by a few % over the period. Montana has been close to 50/50 with a little creep toward more urbanism too. Specifically today the US is 79% urban / 21% rural, Montana is 54% urban /46% rural. Will Montana ever catch up? Probably not the landscape is so huge and the economy different. But Montana will likely get to 60% urban 40% rural at some point and might go higher. How much higher? Depends where the jobs are and how the kids of today and tommorrow want to live.
Comment By Dan, 4-16-06US urban population is about 85% inside the official "urban area", Montana again is only half and half with lots of folks choosing to live just outside the urban area in the "urban cluster" according to data at the Montana Census and Ecomic Information Center http://ceic.mt.gov/C2000/UA_UC/urban_rural_us_sf3.xls
Only about 1 in 4 or 5 of rural is farm as prime occupation based rural, the others are lifestyle choice or combination of reasons.
If/when Montana gets to 60% urban 40% rural does the political balance of power change considerably? It might, but if it is the same people living in slightly different urban/rural mix it might not. Migration from elsewhere could also have some potentially important effect.
Will the urban/rural mix find a new stable level for the first half of the 21st century like the stable 50%/50% mix for the second half of the 20th century? Or will it keep going ever up reaching 70% at some point? Folks with vary on how much they like the new mix depending on how much they liked the oldmix they experienced. If you lived in a 75-80% urban state most of your life you might not even notice a change from 50-60% that much... or would you? And would it be disappointment of seeing that happen in Montana where you moved? Or excitement about what it brings in addition to the great outdoors? It will of course vary from person to person in this new west but which way will the majority of sentiment lean?
It is worth noting that Montana still has the smallest urban population % in the west with Idaho next and then Wyoming.
All other western states have already hit at least 70% urban. Wyoming will hit it soon or perhaps already has. Many western states are in fac more urban than national average: Colorado 82% in 1990, Arizona, Utah and Nevada were already pushing 90% urban then and probably over it by now. California was 92% urban then and could be closer to 95% now.
It is still urban next to rural and that is different than urban wall to wall with no buffer. Most of America is still urban with some rural buffer nearby (including much of the midwest and south, less so in the most urbanized corridors of the midwest & southin and most of the northeast). Urban next to rural should continue as the norm in many places but over the ful century we will see more and more mergers of metropolitan areas into megapolitan areas (Phoenix merging with Tucson etc.)
Comment By pete geddes, 4-16-06Pete:
Our state government can indeed help.The state should foster entrepreneurship and attract and retain high human capital, but not try to guess likely winners.
Constructive policies include substantial investments in higher education and fundamental tax reform. Relaxed environmental standards, poor schools, and high marginal income and business taxes invite economic failure. All repel entrepreneurs.
But beware state intervention that portends to "know" our economic future. Our region has a sorry track record in this regard. Here's but one example.
Between 1933 and 1938 the Columbia Basin Project (CBP) impounded water behind the Grand Coulee Dam. It was to provide irrigation and power to 100,000 family farms, and turn the desert of eastern Washington into lush farmland. Two generations later, only a few thousand farmers and corporations work the irrigated land-at great cost to taxpayers and the environment.
What was the problem? Federal planners designed policies for an unknown future, the only kind we have. The CBP plans did not anticipate changes in technology such as the replacement of horses by tractors. The tractors, tillers, and harvesters all became much, much larger and faster. This led to huge consolidation rather than 40-acre farms. Social preferences are even more difficult to predict (e.g., for healthy runs of wild salmon instead of more dams for irrigation).
Montana is fundamentally two states. The fast-growing western counties (e.g., Missoula, Flathead, Gallatin, and Ravalli) are economically and culturally linked with major metropolitan areas.
In contrast, the eastern two-thirds of the state is part of the high desert plains extending east to the 98th meridian. It has fewer people today than during World War I.
Economic and ecological forces have proved that John Wesley Powell got it right in his 1878 Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States. He warned that the region's adverse mix of climate and topography would preclude repeating the successful homesteading experience in the Midwest.
In this region, as elsewhere in the developed world, information, transportation, and technological improvements drive out higher-cost agricultural producers. The consolidation of farms and ranches follows and towns decline.
As a rancher and family farmer I'm sure we can
foster a 'win/win' situation between our 'city and country cousins' and realize we have more
to gain than lose.
Farmers need to communicate better and urban folk need to understand where their food really comes from. Urban dwellers can benefit from farmers markets that are part of German culture at least what I've seen held every Saturday,where
they still control sprawl, and balance the town/village culture with the rich farmland that
surrounds them. The Germans shop locally, HATE
Walmarts, and still take walks in the local woods, and try to appreciate what they have, at
least in the smaller cities, villages and towns.
Hat off to you Senor Pete there is hope for the eastern plains and possibility for funding in projects besides farming and hunting. An institution of Higher learning, Ethical training Center, Refindery would be welcomed on the north eastern plains of Montana. The closing of Fortuna Airbase in Fortuna ND the seventies also put a dent into bussiness in the area. Just like good and evil there must be balance...Your speaking up for a Montana souls here.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/bridging_montanas_rural_urban_divide/