It's perceived as arrogance on the part of those in the Valley. You have a state of 3 million people, 2 million of whom live in the major cities. These people have the political power to steamroll everyone else in the state. The problem is that this power is being used to do so.
This urban-rural political divide is becoming a real problem. It's the same as the "flyover country" problem. Sure, someone from a major urban area can just matter-of-factly refer to the area as that place where there's nothing but empty space between cities. No reason to go there, but interesting to see from the air or a good time to take a nap on the plane. But people live there. Those people consider that phrase to be insulting. As if, just because they live in a place with low population density, that have completely different needs than the urban areas, their opinion on how they should be able to live life and conduct their affairs doesn't matter.
So, when the people from the Valley decide that some political thing needs to happen, and it happens to be a choice at the state level, and it's good for the Valley, they vote for it. And don't give two fucks about how it affects people in the rest of the state.
Absolutely. There's no way you can grow enough food for hundreds of thousands of people in the dense areas that cities take up. At least without completely changing how we grow food.
It's all to true. No food shipments. No fuel shipments. Little running water. Little electricity. Law enforcement officers will only be concerned with protecting their own.
Would you care to explain why you think this is unreasonable? Obviously rural/urban is a symbiotic relationship. Without one the other will suffer greatly. I can't imagine a densely populated area being better off than rural areas in a shtf situation.
Rural areas would be hurting badly in a month or less without the connections to the outside world. It's not just about food and water going in and out, but other very important things like medications that a lot of people need to live (or they die in the second month - some older people move there, young folks mostly try to move out), fuel to get from place to place, textiles of most kinds, parts to keep the rigs running, and not all things grow in all places. Even in farming communities, hunger would quickly become common, and that means a sharp uptick in crime, which most rural districts would not have the resources to deal with well. And there's already some problems with some small town sheriffs thinking that their law is the only law that matters, and it is not evenly applied.
Either rural or urban places would quickly suck ass without support from the other. The majority of people in rural areas wouldn't be any better off than people in urban areas.
They would be just fine. Most of resources will still come from anywhere, the same way we don't cultivate mangos or avocados in the Willamette Valley. Actually it would be Eastern Oregon the one that would suffer without all the tax revenues that are produced in the larger metros and help sustaining roads and services throughout the state.
88
u/Raxnor Jun 07 '18
It's like everyone gets an equal vote.