City vs. Country
Decatur Metro | June 4, 2009All of this talk about Sonny’s new found love of high-speed rail has me reflecting on something Andisheh wrote during our latest row our MARTA funding. This line in particular…
Over the past year I’ve come to realize that Sonny, Casey, Glenn and their ilk don’t think being like Mississippi and Alabama is a bad thing.
They know better than anyone that progress is going to kill them and their type off. The friendlier metro Atlanta is entrepreneurs and educated professionals, the less likely they are to get anywhere near the levers of power. Their hatred of Atlanta isn’t sadism. It’s cynical self-preservation.
In this modern age of globalization, this contentious city vs. country mentality has become a given. Sure there have always been innate differences between the two areas, as exemplified by the classic children’s tale “The City Mouse and the Country Mouse”, interpreted here by Sesame Street...but only recently has the relationship really crumbled to the extent that one sees so little benefit in the other.
Sure, Atlanta’s massive economy still supports the greater state in countless ways, but rarely is this noticed. And no one should be surprised by this. It’s just not tangible enough that Atlanta taxes support road repaving in southern Georgia. What we seem to have forgotten is that this disconnect is an entirely new phenomenon. As detailed by urban history books like “Nature’s Metropolis“, the city and the country were until very recently, inextricably tied in a relationship so tight that they lived and died together.
How? Through food and industry.
As “Nature’s Metropolis” demonstrates, at it’s birth, transport hubs like Chicago were solely dependent on the crops and natural resources being harvested from local farms and forests. New rail lines brought these commodities into the major cities for pricing and distribution. The success of Chicago hinged on the success of it’s outlying areas and the success of outlying areas depended on Chicago’s success of becoming a major hub for distribution. The local economy tied one to the other.
Today, in our glorious global economy, our food and natural resources come from thousands of miles away. Not only does that produce the often documented issues caused by distance (i.e. we’re much more OK with cutting down trees in Brazil than say, Northern Georgia), but it also inadvertently creates this new animosity.
As a result, city and rural political leaders just don’t see the benefit in supporting each other anymore.
I’m not asking you to cry about this dysfunctional relationship, just to recognize that it hasn’t always been and therefore doesn’t always have to be this way.
Add it to the pile of arguments in favor of long neglected local economies: more functional urban/rural relationships.
Latest from Decaturish
Its the same story in Boston metro and Seattle metro areas. The political populace west of I495 in Boston generally can’t stand Bostonians and political populace on the east side of of the Cascade mtns can’t stand Seattlites on the west side. I’ve heard rural people make comments in person and the media about how city people are elistist and they don’t want to be told how to run thier land by a bunch of liberals and/or intellectuals. (alot of people in the rural areas think that all people in the city are liberals…whatever thats supposed to mean. I thinks some of this may simply be jealousy) Several promising transport initiatives have been held hostage to this mentality in both cities. Cities obviously contain large numbers of people and we have to have certain levels of efficiency to gain and maintain a good quality of life. The us against them mentality is absurd. I think you make a good point as to the food link and hopefully we are headed back in that direction.
Put another way is that the city and its surrounding countryside are not longer mutually dependent. Because, for the most part, we no longer eat from our own yard, Atlanta has no *need* for rural Georgia. As a result, we’re dismissive.
On the flipside, rural Georgia’s relationship with Atlanta is one of a Sugar Daddy, with all the exploitation and resentment that suggests.
Like you say, DM, it’s a relatively new dynamic. But it will be a short lived one if there comes a time when we need each other again.
Indeed!
And not just food, but also lumber and countless other natural resources…depending on the area of the country that your city is located.
I am always blown away by the lack of respect between City and State. Part of the problem is that there is very little incentive to work with each other since both have autonomous governing bodies that tend to work within their own agendas even at the expense of others. The same phenomena exist between Decatur and DeKalb and also City of Decatur and City Schools of Decatur or for that matter state and nation. I think the smaller the bodies, the less excuses their are for them not to work together. The solution is to cross pollinate the governing bodies with liasons whose job it is to demonstrate policy that benefits both parties. I have mentioned this to both the City of Decatur and the CSD, to at a minimum have staff attend each other’s meetings.
Excellent point about City of Decatur and CSD needing to have more robust and frequent connections. Having staff attend each others meetings would be excellent start. The City of Decatur needs CSD to thrive to remain a healthy community attractive to a wide range of prospective residents, businesses, and visitors. CSD is dependent on the City in many, many ways from financial (millage, bonds, annexation, etc.), services (Decatur Active Living after school and youth programs that serve children), community (safe, healthy children from involved families learn better and score better), etc. CSD needs to learn from the City how to be more customer friendly and less defensive. It should consider implementing the equivalent of Decatur 101–not only would it be good for CSD public relations and informational for families, but CSD staff could develop more skills in encouraging and responding to public involvement. I would rather approach a City of Decatur councilperson or official any day than approach a CSD School Board member or CSD Administrator.
P.S. I meant to sign this as CSD Snowflake but I forgot my nom de plume. Hence, the “flake” allusion.
Very good points on the mutual dependence. I think there are plans in the works to include CSD in Decatur 101, which is the most obvious omission from an otherwise outstanding class. In my view that’s better than a separate CSD 101, since from a citizen’s point of view, they’re all one Decatur government. And it would be a good opportunity for CSD to “sell” itself to the broader, non-school public, on which it very much depends.
check out the video trailer for this new documentary being released soon about the food industrial complex.
http://www.foodincmovie.com/
Great topic. As Darwinian as it may sound, it appears that the current transportation and distribution options means that the country needs that city but not vice-versa. Hong Kong seems to be a shinning example of this assertion.
Hong Kong is a small rock with essentially no natural resources, no distinct geographical advantages, and a lot of political limbo. Yet its free market and lack of need to support a dependent country-side has made it a post-industrial economic juggernaut.
Atlanta would be a more efficient and thriving metro if it did not have to subsidize the rest of the state, which in the longer term would also make the non-metro area of Georgia more prosperous.
But as Andisheh sagaciously observes, fat chance the political structure of the state will facilitate this progressive idea.
Good example Brad. But does the country still really need the city? I mean they certainly benefit from the subsidies side, but do they really NEED it? Not enough to show the city any respect or deference obviously. As Scott pointed out, we’re essentially a Sugar Daddy…and a Sugar Daddy doesn’t necessarily keep you alive, but buys you nice things.
If we relied on each other more, then maybe we’d each be more apt to listen to the other. But I like your example, because it’s the opposite end of the spectrum from my conclusion. A city without a countryside to support is the strongest player in a global economy.
However, Hong Kong’s is a future dependent on cheap oil and a globalized economy. Is this model durable into the future? Probably to a large extent yes…at least as long as we live. But eventually, at some point, it’ll stop working…basically because current economic theory doesn’t count anything extracted from the earth and used as a loss. When will that happen? Probably later than the left and sooner than the right thinks.
Sonny, Glen, and Casey are going to fall in love with rapid rail and outer perimeter highways rapidly if they wish to continue exploiting the city-country disconnect. What was once country with respect to Atlanta is beginning to bear a remarkable resemblance to the city. Living in these city-country hybirds requires more income than living in the city… everything is farther apart and staying employed requires more effort than living in the city. It will not be long before a majority of those who live in these hybrid worlds and typically vote Republican realize that the free taxes they currently reap from Atlanta’s economy are not enough to pay for the rail and concrete conveniences they need to sustain their living styles. Sonny and his buddies probably know that in any high maintenance relationship the beneficiary reserves the right to switch sugar daddies when the conveniences are not up to par.
The city/county dynamic is not recent. There has always been tension between city & rural dwellers….this tension being about identity & culture as much as anything. Many rural areas have stayed the same for a long time and have supported an agrarian way of life that while very important has often been belittled (“redneck”). While I certainly don’t condone Atlanta bashing, rural people are rarely appreciated by city folk for the contributions they make & have made to the area (culture, music, agriculture, rootedness). One obvious resource we are reliant on in the city that comes from elsewhere is our water…which understandably causes resentment in our neighbors to the north & west. I don’t think that you can underestimate how attitudes & culture play a role in these scuffles.