3 ms·

> why are urban areas subsidizing infrastructure spending in rural areas and the farm bill only to get kicked in the teeth when issues associated with urban are

> why are urban areas subsidizing infrastructure spending in rural areas and the farm bill only to get kicked in the teeth when issues associated with urban areas come up? I'm curious what Urban American has gotten "kicked in the teeth" by? Mainly, the $ figures are from military, power, and agriculture which Urban American doesn't want in their backyard. Pigs and turkeys don't smell so good, and wind farms are noisy, unsightly, and a bit dangerous. Counting military and power spending is pretty poor form. Transportation happens because the low cost raw materials come from the rural areas. No roads, no food for urban folks. > Rural America doesn't have a monopoly on the "real" America - they are just as out of touch with urban America. That's not really true. Rural America is quite aware of the issues Urban America face because that's all the news really covers. When the news covers Rural America it is pretty bad reporting unless the reporter is actually local[1]. The whole debacle of the pipeline in Standing Rock pretty much proved the point. I've seen coverage of celebrities and pieces from major publications that get much of the history wrong[2]. 1) which makes me wonder about reports coming from the rest of the world 2) the whole "rich people in Bismarck" line is beyond insulting and the amount of back story on all the prep for the pipeline is tragically poor.

knz 10y ago
> I'm curious what Urban American has gotten "kicked in the teeth" by? Mainly, the $ figures are from military, power, and agriculture which Urban American doesn't want in their backyard. Pigs and turkeys don't smell so good, and wind farms are noisy, unsightly, and a bit dangerous. Counting military and power spending is pretty poor form. Transportation happens because the low cost raw materials come from the rural areas. No roads, no food for urban folks A local example for my State would be spending on public transportation vs bridges. Elected officials from rural areas are routinely outraged about "wasteful" spending on buses/trains to relieve congestion but then complain that not enough is spent on rural bridges and highways. You are right, we do need roads to bring food in (it's symbiotic too by the way -if urban areas don't buy then rural areas are back to subsistence farming and poverty) but we could do that without four lane highways and overpasses. Personally I amok spending tax revenue on infrastructure but that should include public transportation in urban areas if appropriate. > That's not really true. Rural America is quite aware of the issues Urban America face because that's all the news really covers Seeing coverage is not the same as understanding. Ask someone in a rural area how to solve inner-city poverty and they will give you a different answer than someone who works in the field. The same could be said about rural issues. To be clear, Im not saying urban America understands rural America. I'm just sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites don't understand rural America". It's way too simplistic.
- protomyth 10y ago
  I would hardly call public transportation vs bridges a kick in the teeth. Bridges are becoming a huge issue for everyone. Just look at what happened in urban MN when the 35W bridge went because we were not spending the money on maintenance. > Ask someone in a rural area how to solve inner-city poverty and they will give you a different answer than someone who works in the field. I'm not sure urban folks know how to solve it either. > I'm just sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites don't understand rural America". It's way too simplistic. It is simplistic, but you cannot have a candidate show up and give speeches about putting all the people in a region out of work without a lifeline. Not everything in life is complicated. If someone showed up in SV and said "I don't like this technology and we will be shutting it all down", I would imagine that person is going to get no votes. I'm pretty sure Rubio (or most of the R candidates) would have won, and it would have been on the same basis. The fact that the Republicans won with a candidate with the highest negatives is pretty hard to believe. As a side note, I starting to think polling companies should look at donor lists to get some baseline on candidates. I'm thinking that's the next wave of polling analysis.
  - knz 10y ago
    35W is a great example (I live in the Twin Cities and was only a mile or two from the bridge when it collapsed). Our Republican Governor at the time (Pawlenty) had aspirations for Washington so signed a "No New Taxes" pledge primarily to appease rural Minnesotans (he also promised to "reprioritize" spending to benefit rural areas). It was a great example of how bridges that were known to urgently need repairs were neglected. After Dayton (take a guess which party) was elected the State raised taxes and has rebuilt many bridges. The Twin Cities also has some other good examples - Republicans actively fight against metro transit projects (both light rail lines, the proposed SW Light Rail, BRT lines in place of LRT for at least 3 other corridors, and even regular city buses) but proudly tell their rural/exurban constituents about "successes" like replacing the Stillwater lift bridge (an old 2 lane bridge) with a massive four lane bridge very similar to the I-90 bridge just south of the area. How do you justify $500M for a bridge that benefits ~ 10,000 rural commuters/rural industry but ignore the daily congestion that tens of thousands of commuters face (coming in from Woodbury, Oakdale, Lake Elmo, Hudson etc). The gateway corridor had a similar price tag to the Stillwater bridge but became a partisan issue. It doesn't have to be an either or situation - we could fund both but it gets turned into a partisan issue by Republicans in the name of "wasteful spending by urban liberals". Democrats don't oppose rural bridges or highways but many Republicans actively oppose public transport on principle.

knz 10y ago

> I'm curious what Urban American has gotten "kicked in the teeth" by? Mainly, the $ figures are from military, power, and agriculture which Urban American doesn't want in their backyard. Pigs and turkeys don't smell so good, and wind farms are noisy, unsightly, and a bit dangerous. Counting military and power spending is pretty poor form. Transportation happens because the low cost raw materials come from the rural areas. No roads, no food for urban folks A local example for my State would be spending on public transportation vs bridges. Elected officials from rural areas are routinely outraged about "wasteful" spending on buses/trains to relieve congestion but then complain that not enough is spent on rural bridges and highways. You are right, we do need roads to bring food in (it's symbiotic too by the way -if urban areas don't buy then rural areas are back to subsistence farming and poverty) but we could do that without four lane highways and overpasses. Personally I amok spending tax revenue on infrastructure but that should include public transportation in urban areas if appropriate. > That's not really true. Rural America is quite aware of the issues Urban America face because that's all the news really covers Seeing coverage is not the same as understanding. Ask someone in a rural area how to solve inner-city poverty and they will give you a different answer than someone who works in the field. The same could be said about rural issues. To be clear, Im not saying urban America understands rural America. I'm just sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites don't understand rural America". It's way too simplistic.

protomyth 10y ago
I would hardly call public transportation vs bridges a kick in the teeth. Bridges are becoming a huge issue for everyone. Just look at what happened in urban MN when the 35W bridge went because we were not spending the money on maintenance. > Ask someone in a rural area how to solve inner-city poverty and they will give you a different answer than someone who works in the field. I'm not sure urban folks know how to solve it either. > I'm just sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites don't understand rural America". It's way too simplistic. It is simplistic, but you cannot have a candidate show up and give speeches about putting all the people in a region out of work without a lifeline. Not everything in life is complicated. If someone showed up in SV and said "I don't like this technology and we will be shutting it all down", I would imagine that person is going to get no votes. I'm pretty sure Rubio (or most of the R candidates) would have won, and it would have been on the same basis. The fact that the Republicans won with a candidate with the highest negatives is pretty hard to believe. As a side note, I starting to think polling companies should look at donor lists to get some baseline on candidates. I'm thinking that's the next wave of polling analysis.
- knz 10y ago
  35W is a great example (I live in the Twin Cities and was only a mile or two from the bridge when it collapsed). Our Republican Governor at the time (Pawlenty) had aspirations for Washington so signed a "No New Taxes" pledge primarily to appease rural Minnesotans (he also promised to "reprioritize" spending to benefit rural areas). It was a great example of how bridges that were known to urgently need repairs were neglected. After Dayton (take a guess which party) was elected the State raised taxes and has rebuilt many bridges. The Twin Cities also has some other good examples - Republicans actively fight against metro transit projects (both light rail lines, the proposed SW Light Rail, BRT lines in place of LRT for at least 3 other corridors, and even regular city buses) but proudly tell their rural/exurban constituents about "successes" like replacing the Stillwater lift bridge (an old 2 lane bridge) with a massive four lane bridge very similar to the I-90 bridge just south of the area. How do you justify $500M for a bridge that benefits ~ 10,000 rural commuters/rural industry but ignore the daily congestion that tens of thousands of commuters face (coming in from Woodbury, Oakdale, Lake Elmo, Hudson etc). The gateway corridor had a similar price tag to the Stillwater bridge but became a partisan issue. It doesn't have to be an either or situation - we could fund both but it gets turned into a partisan issue by Republicans in the name of "wasteful spending by urban liberals". Democrats don't oppose rural bridges or highways but many Republicans actively oppose public transport on principle.