Lenoir is a small town in western North Carolina. It has 18,000 people, a Wal-Mart, a Waffle House and an annual parade famous for people carrying pans of blackberry cobbler.Is it a rural place?
Are the 18,000 in a square mile or 180 square miles?
The U.S. government has an answer: Yes.
No.
Yes. Yes. No. No. No. Yes. No. No. No. No. No.
The problem is that the U.S. government has at least 15 official definitions of the word "rural," used by various agencies to parcel out $37 billion-plus in federal money for "rural development." And each one is different.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, doncha know.
In one program, for instance, "rural" is defined as any place with fewer than 50,000 residents. So Lenoir is rural, and eligible for money. But in another, only towns smaller than 2,500 residents are "rural." There are 11 definitions of "rural" in use within the U.S. Department of Agriculture alone.
These varying definitions have become a baroque example of redundancy and duplication in Washington. They mean extra costs for taxpayers -- and extra hassle for small-town officials -- as separate offices ask them the same question in up to 15 different ways.
"If you were starting from a blank slate, providing one definition would be optimal," said Doug O'Brien, the USDA official in charge of rural development programs. But optimal is not happening. This week the Senate is expected to pass a bill that would pare down the list of definitions. Down to nine.
The list has grown in the way government duplication often does: one good intention at a time. Frequently, a new set of legislators or bureaucrats has set up a program to help rural communities, and has come up with its own definition of what "rural" ought to mean.
But nobody bothers to erase the other definitions already on the books.
Last year's laws - who cares?
Then, repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Today, the government's official definitions of "rural" include one written in 1936: an area with fewer than 10,000 people. That one is still used to parcel out rural telecommunications grants. Another definition was written in 1949: any place with fewer than 2,500 people. It is used for housing-aid programs.
Like it would've made a huge difference if that law had used the old definition. No doubt the law was used to exclude some out-of-favor town with 5,298 people.
These exist alongside other, different definitions: One sets the population limit for "rural" areas at 20,000. Another, at 25,000. Another, at 50,000. By Washington's strictest definition of rural -- any place with fewer than 2,500 residents -- there are 59 million rural Americans.
Still sounds higher than I expected...
By its most expansive definition -- any place with less than 50,000 residents -- there are about 190 million, more than three times more.
That's just silly, but it does give politicians some leeway for their speeches.
Kevin Sanchez wanted a grant for a refrigerated truck to deliver food to people in outlying areas of Yolo county (CA). But there was a problem: At the end of the workday, Sanchez planned to park the truck at the food bank's office in the county seat, Woodland -- population 56,000.
By this grant program's definitions, the truck couldn't be considered a rural project.
"I said, 'Yolo County's rural. Period.' " Sanchez said. They said "Well, gee. You know, [the town] is more than 20,000, so you really don't qualify. Would you consider relocating the truck? " If the truck were outside city limits, they explained, the definition wouldn't be a problem. Sanchez didn't apply for the money.
"You go park a truck outside the town, and it ain't gonna be there the next morning," he said.
Ah, California!
Even if Congress does knock six definitions off the list, in January a federal agency is planning to add a new one. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will begin using its own definition of "rural." It's based on a complicated measurement of urbanization and commuting patterns.
Complicated is better, right? Why should it make a difference for consumer protection, by the way?
So then, the question of whether Lenoir is rural would have yet another answer: Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No3. Yes. No5.
And ..... no.