DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL AREAS GOING IGNORED

A combination of circumstances leads to the realistic conclusion that Missouri state government doesn't have enough revenue to spend on such an esoteric project as rural development. Despite the fact that a portion of rural Missouri is moving closer and closer to a vast wasteland, and in spite of a declining population, eroding business sector and crumbling infrastructure, only a handful of elected state officials seem to have noticed. Certainly oblivious to these troubling problems are those who have in recent years supported outlandish urban projects at the expense of the rest of the state, guaranteeing that a disproportionate amount of state tax money would be diverted to such schemes as convention centers and stadiums for non-existent "Field of Dreams" NFL football franchises.

We have never understood, nor do we expect to, how state officials who have taken an oath of office to represent all citizens of Missouri can, in good conscience, approve annual payments of millions of dollars far into the next century for these projects, while on the other hand choose to ignore the plight of decaying sections of the same state.

It goes without saying, then, that the matter of rural development rates a very low priority in virtually all of Jefferson City and, unfortunately, even on the main campus of the University of Missouri at Columbia. Defenders of this bizarre public policy will argue that state government is spending millions of dollars to enhance development in many of our 144 counties, yet the figures they cite are primarily designed to support the bureaucracy of government, not underwrite programs designed to restore the fiscal infrastructure of this huge portion of our geography. The truth is we're spending less and less in Missouri on one of the principal points of erosion: the decay of Main Street Missouri. It seems to have such a remote priority that even in this election year, Missourians have heard little on the subject, and a sizable portion of this came from candidates who were eliminated from future leadership by primary election defeats.

Even in the nation's capital, where any expenditure of money is favorably viewed as a means of gaining voter approval, there is great reluctance to make any investment in rural America, although there is Pavlovian eagerness to restore riot-torn slums in Los Angeles. Millions to rebuild a burning Korean's store in south central L.A., but no money for rebuilding projects in rural Missouri, or any other state.

One of the continuing excuses for this inattention is that no one seems to know what kind of programs and action projects will pay off. The privately funded W. K. Kellogg Foundation has probably given more leadership and financing to rural development than any other organization in the country. The Kellogg people recently published a comprehensive study on the subject, and for those who say they don't know how to proceed, we highly recommend a close reading of the foundation's recommendations.

One of the experts quoted in the Kellogg study is Dr. Brady Deaton, an agricultural economist at the University of Missouri who has a wide background of knowledge and service, much of it occurring earlier in Tennessee and Virginia. Dr. Deaton lists "four key issues that a community concerned for its vitality is certain to face." The M.U. specialist lists them:

1. Quality of infrastructure.

2. Access to labor and capital.

3. Financing of quality education.

4. Getting and holding competent and dedicated leadership.

One of the questions in every approach to rural development is how to distinguish between what outside help a community must have versus what it can do on its own. Most need, at the very least, some outside assistance in financing infrastructure. "Owing in part to their spatial isolation," Dr. Deaton points out, "rural communities are particularly sensitive to federal and state assistance in funding roads, schools, fire protection, health facilities and industrial sites."

It should be recognized that improvements in infrastructure do not guarantee that a community will revive and grow, but an adequate base of transport and service facilities is necessary as a starting point. Moreover, Deaton notes, if communities must bear too much of the infrastructure cost they are likely to shortchange their schools a damaging outcome.

Health care lends itself to combining public aid with local ingenuity. The M.U. professor offers several suggestions for local action, such as providing mobile units for medical testing.

Finance capital often is short. Deregulation in the banking system and increased mobility of capital, not to mention the closures of many small banks in rural areas, make it harder to get and keep funds for local investment. However, Dr. Deaton has doubts about using large tax concessions to draw in capital. The concessions may increase the tax burden on local homeowners, farmers and businessmen, resulting in little or no net civic gain.

As for local schools, virtually everyone agrees on the worth of quality education, yet as the federal government has cut back on community aid generally it has added to the financial pinch in which school districts find themselves. In our state's case, the draining of general tax revenue for multimillion-dollar integration programs and a slowing economy have prevented Missouri from making needed progress in improved education.

Leadership, Dr. Deaton's fourth component, is an important tangible. One of the worst consequences of depopulation is the "draining off of part of the local talent pool." Effective leadership must be recruited, trained or developed. State agencies, including state universities, can assist in this effort, but such services must be funded and encouraged by our political leaders. They seldom do.

We are troubled by the lack of attention being given rural development by those who now solicit our votes and support.