Is there a reason we should invest in this area as opposed to our cities and regions where people aren't leaving and actually want to live in? My instinct here is that this is political theatre that ultimately does very little for an area that will continue to depopulate.
Respectfully disagree on this one. It shouldn't matter whether people "actually want to live in" Appalachia -- the reality is that a lot of people do live there, aren't planning on leaving anytime soon, and are suffering because of economic problems unique to the region. Helping rural areas and helping cities isn't a binary choice.
The bill seems like it'll be fine once we plug a dollar amount in, and I plan to support it.
Detroit, for example, suffers similarly from blight, job loss, population loss, and brain drain. However, as Detroit is a large population in a smaller area, you could more effectively help more people by investing there. Even if we were to pursue this, I don't think it's fair to choose certain groups (mostly whites) to prioritize over other groups (mostly non-whites).
I think there's more value in supporting environmental clean up efforts in former mining areas while investing in jobs where economies have more foundational support. We get a better per dollar return by doing so. Respectfully, I think there's evidence that the economic problems unique to Appalachia are not going to be fixed by this bill. It may have a band-aid effect temporarily, but the root cause of decline is not addressed here and will eventually supercede any artificial investment in this region.
