NYT: California's Far North Deplores 'Tyranny' of the Urban Majority

[JA]

Rural areas and their voters have, historically, been highly favored in the districting process and the attention they receive from elected officials. Even suburban areas have been disproportionately favored. It's unfortunate that these rural communities in Northern California are suffering, but that's a widespread problem all across America. Nobody seems to know how to solve it, aside from urging them to relocate to urban areas (which is a suggestion with which I agree) or providing them with fantastical myths about all those outdated jobs coming back (they never will).

The big fight today is between the growing, economically powerful, and increasingly influential urban areas against the socially decaying, economically depressed, and shrinking exurban and rural areas of America.

[JA]

I f**king hate how this f**king urban-rural divide has become the cornerstone of US politics - as evidenced by some replies in this very thread.

Any political coalition that's based mainly on urban or mainly on rural interests as such is a terrible coalition that has no right to exist.

Anything to avoid making it class based, which would cut across such lines. As it stands, rural areas do tend to have greater Congressional power and influence, yet despite that their actual concerns are still largely ignored while their communities decay. The main problem facing America's rural areas is piss poor infrastructure; it's the main difference between American and European rural areas (the former of which is performing considerably worse than the latter). I do believe rural residents should relocate to urban areas if they can (both for economic and environmental purposes), but they shouldn't be ignored either because Republicsns just care about their votes to push their wealthy agenda and Democrats dismiss them for their voting habits and culture.

[JA]

I do believe rural residents should relocate to urban areas if they can (both for economic and environmental purposes)

Really? I find it very disturbing that large swathes of Western countries are turning into depopulated wastelands as population increasingly concentrates into a few gigantic metropolises. It doesn't strike me as a sustainable trend at all (think of skyrocketing housing prices, urban sprawl.

I find it disturbing only insofar as that is occurring without any adequate long-term vision to shape policy responses to these positive trends. What's wrong with depopulation of vast swaths of land? Those areas could be converted into greater forest coverage, wildlife sanctuaries, productive farmland, or some other societal or ecological positive, rather than letting dilapidated homes stand and shuttered factories rust.

Increased urbanization is a good thing as well; if coupled with policies, such as those implemented in Tokyo, that disregard the protestations of homeowners to build additional housing projects, construct more skyrises for low income and working class families, develop 21st century green public transportation systems, tackle property speculation and purchases by wealthy foreign buyers, and eliminate the 1950s American ideal of a large single-family house in the suburbs, while implementing rent controls and dramatically expanding public housing (along with options for workers to buy low-cost public housing), most of the problems associated with skyrocketing urban living costs would be eliminated.

Those are all tall tasks and quite fantastical from the viewpoint of a deadlocked American government and disproportionate rural and suburban influence over politics, but they're all perfectly legitimate and effective responses to our problems.