|
“INCIDENTS – Hurricane Police
Department: A resident of the 1100 block of South 920 West reported Wednesday
several chickens were in her yard. The chickens had been there several days and
were walking on her flowers.” –
“The Spectrum,” March 23,
2001, Washington County, Utah.
That’s my kind of crime wave,
something you can handle with a deep fryer and 11 herbs and spices.
Unfortunately, it’s not always that easy in rural America.
To begin with, there’s less of
it. The 2000 census is being released in bits and pieces so detailed
information on California is not yet available. Nevertheless, the rural
population nationwide is clearly shrinking. The official count shows dozens of
counties in South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa,
Illinois, and elsewhere lost population while the nation’s urban areas gained.
Kids raised in lightly populated areas tended to leave for education and work
then didn’t see much reason to come back.
I don’t know if many California
towns dry up and blow away Midwest-style; more likely they simply grow into
bigger towns. A case in point is Loomis, about 30 miles east of Sacramento.
Hardly a metropolis now, the sign outside of town claimed 600 souls when my
family moved there in the early 60s. Most folks farmed, like the aunt and uncle
we moved near, or worked in agriculture related jobs.
Today the population of Loomis is
6,400, despite having incorporated in 1984 for the stated purpose of limiting
growth. About 24,000 live in the Loomis basin. Most work in nearby businesses
or commute to jobs in and around Sacramento. If there’s an operating orchard
still there I don’t know where it is.
No place can stay rural without a
reason. A hundred years ago, 40 percent of Americans farmed, but today it’s
less than 2 percent and they produce more than we can eat. Extractive and
forest industries are also in decline; much of what we once produced ourselves
is now imported. I’ll save the debate over whether this is good or bad for
another day, but there are few economic reasons for folks to spread out if their
living isn’t from the land.
People now move to the
countryside for the sake of living rural, not for what used to be a rural
living. I’d wager the population growth in Butte County is due more to the
perceived lifestyle than the draw of farm or forest. The problem is that that’s
what made the country way of life attractive in the first place.
When folks don’t work the land
they need other livelihoods. They need jobs, jobs that tend to be in offices,
or warehouses, or manufacturing. They need roads to get to the jobs, houses
nearby to live, and schools for their children. They need business at which to
buy goods and services, that in turn need employees, who need houses and roads
and schools. People come for the country, then need a city.
Working the land not only requires open space, it doesn’t leave much time for
mischief. Why do “small” towns like Chico fight gangs, drugs, and other evils
more menacing than garden-crashing chickens? There is no one neat answer, but
in part we now have the time for it. In any event the countryside no longer
insulates from big city woes, which infect via radio wave and television signal,
like an airborne virus.
A recent piece in this
paper reported concerns that the county may be losing property tax and
agricultural revenue from the conversion of farmland to wildlife habitats and
nature preserves. The article detailed a study from neighboring Glenn County
showing offsetting benefits, though whether these will provide the economic
incentive to keep rural areas rural remains to be seen.
As for
me, I doubt it. I’m hanging on to every inch I can, but if the census is any
indication the graffiti is on the wall for rural America.
© 1997- 2002 Brent Morrison
|
