Subscribe to this blog 
Rural Infrastructure — The Clark Story
February 13th, 2009 by Mike Knutson
The stimulus package currently in Congress focuses on job creation and infrastructure development. While the urban infrastructure most discussed revolves around roads, schools, and mass transit, the rural infrastructure appears focused on broadband internet.
After reading about the establishment of a “community owned” variety store in Clark, South Dakota, I was reminded that rural infrastructure comes in many forms. I was also reminded that decisions about prioritizing any community’s infrastructure needs is best decided by an informed citizenry at the local level.
The Clark Hometown Variety Store
According to an article in the Watertown Public Opinion, the community of Clark has been without a place to buy many household necessities since the community’s convenience store closed three years ago.
After struggling to reestablish the store through more traditional means, 115-120 community residents “stepped up” and purchased stock ($500 a share) in the newly formed community-owned variety store.
Since opening its doors on Christmas Eve, the store has been an economic boon for the community. Greg Furness, President of the Clark Chamber of Commerce, is quoted in the Public Opinion article saying people from Watertown and Huron have been making the trip to purchase fabric. The store also employs one full-time and four part-time workers.
More importantly, the store fills a need within the community. Communities that offer places to purchase necessities are much more attractive places to live. In many ways, they are a necessary part of the community’s infrastructure, just like good roads, schools, etc…. (source: Joe O’Sullivan, “Clark community store revived”. Watertown Public Opinion, Feb. 9, 2009).
Other forms of rural infrastructure
I’m not the only one who considers stores like this a vital element of a rural community’s infrastructure. The Center for Rural Affairs also categories grocery stores and public libraries as infrastructure. I’d probably place “third places” in the infrastructure category as well.
This brings us to the broadband internet debate. I believe that broadband internet is vital to the economic development of all rural communities. In fact, I’d go a step further and say that we have to develop greater access to wireless internet as well. Young people will demand access to both, and will move away from communities where they can’t get it.
The stimulus package is a pretty complex bill, and I admittedly haven’t paid all that much attention to it.
I just hope that the federal government’s approach to stimulating the rural economy isn’t limited to increasing broadband service. If it is, there will be a lot of rural communities left out of the stimulus plan altogether.
Tags: broadband, Clark SD, economic stimulus plan, grocery stores, retail, rural infrastructure
Posted in Economic Development, In the News, Rural | Comments (
2 )
February 16th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I agree. There must be more to the stimulus package for rural communities than increased broadband. To think that rural places don’t need the same services as urban places, specifically when it comes to schools and roads, could reflect a general belief that virtually all small communities will lose young families and industrial traffic. I know mass transit in rural places strikes some Americans as strange because, they’ll ask, “Where are the masses?” Those people don’t understand that a rural community isn’t necessarily a little town where every available service lies within a few blocks. Rural communities can also be large, sparsely populated counties or reservations where residents, especially the elderly and children, desperately need transportation help.
Regarding Clark’s community owned variety store, Newell and Edgemont are other South Dakota towns that saved stores in this way. In Newell they also created a key “third place” in the form of a spot for coffee drinkers at the front of the store. When stories like this are widely reported, some of the public misunderstands what may be happening. It’s easy to think, wow, people are fleeing rural America so fast that entrepreneurs can’t even make profits selling food. But sometimes the loss of those stores actually stems from robust regional development — a town just up the road suddenly has a sleek, new supermarket. Typically that supermarket develops in a neighboring town of two or three thousand, rather than a few hundred, residents. But the supermarket’s construction is economic development in a rural community, nonetheless. I’m not implying that the smaller towns should stand pat when that happens. What Clark is doing is exactly right for residents’ convenience and for the local tax base. But those big stores can actually take pressure off smaller stores, who can specialize instead of trying to be all things to all people.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Eric Abrahamson published a well-researched post on the topic of rural broadband on his “New Pioneers” blog at http://thenewpioneers.com/?p=42. One thing that jumped out at me is the subtle point he made about not knowing how many rural Americans still need, or most importantly, want broadband. As a remote worker (meaning I work from home or coffee shop or office–or somewhere in between), wireless broadband is a big deal to me. I suspect it’s a big deal to most of the subjects in the new book Eric is writing too. It’s an important piece of the rural community branding puzzle, for sure. And, despite that, it probably is not top of the list of priorities or wishes for most small town leaders.
Like many things in this package, I suppose getting the broadband reach out to more rural communities seems like a big, well-intentioned help through Washington eyes. I hope it’s more than that. I hope rural constituents actually asked for it.
And I hope it’s not the end all for rural towns and counties in this recovery effort.