Out of the box thinking for rural North Carolina

by Tom Campbell, Producer and Moderator, NC SPIN, August 17, 2017.

The plight of rural North Carolina, like the weather, generates lots of talk but little action. Conditions in the rural east and west continue to deteriorate while urban and suburban areas are thriving.

UNC’s Carolina Population Center reports that between 2010 and 2016 nearly 75 percent of the cities and towns in North Carolina either lost population or grew slower than the state average. The hardest hit were located in Eastern North Carolina. The litany of rural problems includes not just the loss of population, but also business closures, high unemployment rates, crumbling infrastructures and tax base declines making it impossible to adequately support education, healthcare, roads, clean water and other amenities.

The history of North Carolina since colonial times is one of population migration, generally westward, in search of better economic opportunities. Small towns grew up with local stores and banks, courts, local governments, roads and rails that aided farm to market and other commerce in these “crossroads” communities. Later, mechanization and manufacturing lured residents from the family farm to improved incomes. This migration reality continues today.

Back in 1663, King Charles I granted eight Lords Proprietors dominion over Carolina and these eight landlords recognized that to prevent attacks and gain wealth from the venture they had to attract settlers to farm, fish and timber the land. They offered free land and greatly reduced taxes in exchange for settling here and many took them up on their offer.

Let’s think out of the box regarding present day rural areas. Perhaps what is old might become new again. North Carolina has established a precedent of offering economic incentives to big industry to locate or expand in our state.

Let us propose a pilot project - offering free land and economic incentives for those willing to locate in our hardest hit regions. Is it possible we could incentivize excellent teachers, doctors and healthcare providers, small business owners and retirees sufficiently enough to get them to live and work where they are most needed? The economic impact wouldn’t be so great as that 200 or 2,000 employee plant we are so eager to land, but in many communities another 50 or 100 people could greatly help restore viability. And to offset those who will surely protest we don’t have the money for such a project we would remind them that our recently passed state budget that included tens of millions of dollars for pork barrel projects. Evidence indicates many of those who received funds never requested them.

What could be more important than addressing our rural crisis? Every taxpayer, every resident, every corporation in our state has a stake in finding solutions, because the burden of supporting these impoverished rural areas, whether enforced by court action or moral obligation, will consume more and more taxpayer resources. We are not suggesting that the solution is the obligation of government alone but would also require assistance from philanthropists, corporations, landowners and others.

Maybe our proposal won’t work and maybe there are better solutions, but it is increasingly obvious that just talking about the problem isn’t helping. Our state cannot prosper if 75 percent of its cities and towns are dying or stagnant. Let’s try some new approaches. We are all in this together.