Quote:
Originally Posted by fintstone
I expect it has more to do with influence. That is why I find it difficult to be silenced about the issue here as some are wont to try to do. As soon as you pretend there is no problem and stop talking about it, a search for solutions goes away and the squeaky wheel gets the grease (smaller but more "popular" problems in more affluent communities). As throughout my lifetime, problems in rural Appalachia are ignored and folks look the other way. As I noted...schools, roads, bridges, housing are all ignored until wealthier people come and find a way to take the land from the inhabitants (or find a way to use them).
Back to your question...I believe the response is largely based on population and how they vote or contribute money (wealth/political affiliation?) …and I do not believe it should be that way. Folks (taxpayers) that live in one part of the state (or county) are just as deserving of decent roads as another. There is no reason why wealthy people in million-dollar homes in the same county should have well-maintained paved roads for almost a century yet the poor still live on unmaintained dirt roads in 2025. The same was true for electricity, running water, phone service and internet.
An example...Why should a child have to miss weeks of school each year because they live on that dirt road (bus stops at the end of the pavement for snow or ice) almost every time it snows while other kids do not? All it does is increase the chances that child will get poor grades/drop out and have the same financial struggles as an adult as his parents. If K-12 schooling is a basic right for citizens, then the ability to get to school and not be excluded should be the same. After a big snow, the poor kids are stuck at home while the more affluent are back in class. A week later (sometimes two) when the snow melts off, the rural poor kids come back to class way behind. Sometimes (although they are not supposed to) they get an F for assignments or with much less time for projects as teachers are pretty quick to forget that they were not there (a handful from each class). They miss school sports and lose their positions on teams, miss school pictures, theatrical productions, the day the military recruiter or the college admissions guy came by to recruit/talk about scholarships, etc. through no fault of their own. If the busses cannot service all bus routes, then school should be cancelled for all. Pretty soon, the poor folk's roads would be fixed, and they would be cleared after storms like everyone else's. Now, few know or care.
As far as your question regarding industry. There essentially is none. There were once small manufacturers...sewing factories paying minimum wages, but those went overseas. Others went to where there was illegal immigrant labor and where they could pay less than minimum wages and use child workers.
There never will be any real manufacturing...as the infrastructure does not and will never support it. Over time, the land will be bought up by wealthy carpet baggers who prefer it to stay that way...so they can eventually take it/buy it up for pennies and use it for vacation homes and logging/mining...and the residents will end up in some urban cesspool/ghetto or working in their service industry as many do now. Then the roads/infrastructure will come/be repaired. For the new masters/owners. A disaster like this (where insurance will not make folks whole and a begrudging response by state and Federal government) speeds the process of displacing the locals in favor of out of more favored folks who grease politicians' pockets from elsewhere.
|
For the bolded--how much of the disparity in provision of services do you see in more suburban or urban areas? Interestingly enough there are many very wealthy neighborhoods near me that have dirt or gravel roads, even within 15 miles on downtown Detroit. If areas of poor housing are getting the **** end of the stick close to cities while the wealthy get the best, yes that's a bad use of public funds.
If we're talking remote, rural areas, though? My realpolitik question is: Does it make sense for the public to be on the hook for providing the same infrastructure and services to remote areas that don't provide significant economic benefit?
Edit: Thanks for your detailed response, though, it's interesting to hear about lived experiences for these regions.