Welfare for the rich in California agriculture

A new report by Gregory Weaver of Fresnoland on California’s Williamson Act adds to the unrelenting stream of news about the disproportionate power and influence of America’s wealthiest citizens. . The report by Fresnoland, a nonprofit newsroom and policy research lab launched by the Fresno Bee, examines the highly unequal distribution of tax benefits under the Williamson Act. 

Per this 1990 report by the Agricultural Issues Center at UC Davis, the Williamson Act, passed in 1965, allows property owners in participating counties to sign contracts with the county that provide landowners with reduced property tax assessments in exchange for restricting the development of their land. County participation is voluntary, although as of 2020, the CA Department of Conservation reported that 52 out of 58 counties had signed contracts with landowners. At its inception, the Act provided for partial reimbursement of the lost local tax revenue by the state, but state funding for the program ceased in 2010, leaving counties to absorb the loss of revenue themselves.  

The intent of the Williamson Act was pro-rural, as it was meant to protect California agricultural land from urban and suburban sprawl that was rapidly encroaching on rural areas in the mid-20th century. By lowering property taxes, the Act’s drafters sought to help farmers hold onto land that they might otherwise have been tempted to sell to real estate developers seeking to build the next subdivision. 

Williamson Act tax breaks have been exploited by large conglomerates and investors to generate larger returns on their investment in massive industrial farming operations.  Fresnoland’s analysis found that “just 120 mega-farms – less than 1% of recipients – are capturing half of the program's $5 billion tax shelter,” while the majority of farmers receive less than $800 in tax breaks per year. 

Under standard property tax formulas, agricultural landowners are taxed based on the purchase price they paid for the farmland. However, if they enroll in the Williamson Act, they instead pay a much lower tax rate calculated using the land’s potential rental value for agriculture, [Fresno County Assessor Paul] Dictos said. This preferential tax structure applies to all farmers enrolled in the Williamson Act. But Dictos said it’s the deep-pocketed investors who acquired prime farmland in recent years who see the largest tax reductions. The result of this tax formula is that the higher the purchase price, the bigger the Act’s tax subsidy, Dictos said. Small farmers and landowners who have owned their land for generations see hardly any benefit under this tax formula, multiple assessors from across the state told Fresnoland.

The Williamson Act property valuation mechanism has led to a discrepancy in tax benefits in which small and medium-sized farmers in Fresno County “are subsidized $24 per acre, while the top mega-growers get $62 per acre.” In Fresno County alone, Williamson Act tax benefits lowered county revenue in 2022 by $50 million below what it would have been absent the subsidies, and over the last 30 years the Act has resulted in a total decrease of $820 million in revenue, most of which has gone to the largest and wealthiest owners of agricultural land. 

Instead of providing a boost to local small farmers, most of the benefits go to large corporations that need no government assistance. Some of these tax breaks are going to investors far outside the county, including the second-largest subsidy in 2022 going to a $240 billion pension fund for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the fifth-largest subsidy going to Gladstone, Inc., a corporation whose purpose is “actively acquiring” agricultural land across the U.S. The report also found that nearly all of the land owned by mega-farmers that receive these benefits are more than a mile from any city.  Thus, the land is not even “at risk of being paved over by encroaching suburban sprawl.”

This outcome strikes me as profoundly unjust and something that the California legislature should rectify. At a time of increasing wealth inequality, providing tax breaks for wealthy investors and corporations to further buy up and consolidate farmland has the primary effect of selling out localities and rural areas that could use the tax revenue for schools, roads, and social services. The issues with the Williamson Act are not unique to California, as experts have observed that the farm "subsidy system is literally undermining the economic and social foundation of rural communities."

Given recent consolidation trends in U.S. agriculture, lawmakers should examine how exactly the Williamson Act is "saving" agricultural land and formulate new policy that actually helps small farmers who live and work in rural parts of the state. Providing financial benefits to large companies who use more water-intensive, extractive agricultural methods provides a sustainable future for only those companies.

Leaving rural agricultural land to the whims of the free market leaves those with fewer resources open to exploitation by moneyed interests. The same economic forces that compel small farmers to sell to industrial agricultural operations are those that led many people in Solano County to sell to the folks from California Forever (further discussed here, here, and here). 

It seems as though tax incentives to protect rural land inevitably end up being exploited by sophisticated investors, as is the case with conservation easements. And protecting existing landowners and creating incentives that drive up land prices only makes it that much harder for those, such as young people and immigrants, who do not already have extensive resources to start new farms. 

There are myriad other agricultural laws and policies that are intended to support farming in California and the U.S. more broadly. Yet the agricultural industry continues to move away from the subsistence model towards large, extractive, profit-seeking ventures. California should take a hard look at how the Williamson Act contributes to that trend and imagine better ways to support the people who live in rural areas rather than aiding those who simply extract profit from them. 

For more discussion of the Williamson Act, see: 

https://legalruralism.blogspot.com/2011/11/farmville-part-vii-golden-state.html

https://legalruralism.blogspot.com/2011/11/california-helps-rural-landowners-with.html

https://legalruralism.blogspot.com/2011/01/browns-budget-proposal-may-have.html

Amid mass layoffs in the National Parks Service, rural communities could be some of the first to suffer.

 On February 14th, 2025, the Trump administration fired 1,000 National Park Service (NPS) employees and several times that number of U.S. Forest Service employees, in the wake of a federal hiring freeze for full and part-time positions with the NPS.

While the Department of the Interior recently exempted 5,000 seasonal workers from the hiring freeze, this represents only a portion of the estimated 7,500 part-time employees NPS hires to help manage the hectic spring and summer. It is unclear if these 5,000 positions will have to be re-advertised and whether early applicants will have to re-apply; if they do, it could result in substantial hiring delays, stretching the NPS' already thin resources even further during peak season. 

  The NPS only has funding for "about 13,000 full-time employees nation wide," according to their website, and some of these jobs are already unfilled. The full-time layoffs thus represent the elimination of nearly 1/10th of NPS positions. Additionally, the full-time hiring freeze also affects incoming NPS rangers, with those about to begin training having job offers rescinded as of January 27th, contradicting previous statements from the Trump Administration that law enforcement personnel would not be affected by federal layoffs.

Theresa Pierno, President and CEO for the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) said in a Feb. 14th press release that the administration's actions will have "devastating consequences for parks and communities," warning that larger parks could lose key staff and smaller parks risk closing their doors altogether. Former NPS director Jonathan Jarvis said in a statement to the National Parks Traveler that the layoffs would cause "chaos," leaving visitors unsatisfied and at potentially serious risk. Search-and-rescue crews, firefighters, and emergency medical service positions are often filled by seasonal workers.

As both Pierno and Jarvis noted, however, it is not just visitors and employees that will be affected by these policies. A 2019 study from headwaterseconomics.org shows 224 rural counties (16.8% of all counties defined as rural by the census bureau) have recreation-dependent economies. Many of these counties are contiguous with national parks or forests, and rely heavily on visitors to stimulate local businesses. (You can read more about rural recreation economies and ecotourism on the blog here).

Although rural recreation economies are often linked with gentrification, there may be some advantages to this model. Rural recreation counties saw more post-pandemic job growth than other rural counties, although this varied slightly from region to region. Rural recreation counties were identified as significantly less likely to experience population loss than non-recreation counties. They were also found to have more food-away-from-home (FAFH) outlets per 1,000 people than metropolitan counties, according to a 2019 study by the USDA, Economic Research Service and the University of Arkansas. 

To help support these recreation economies, the EPA formed the Recreation Economy for Rural Communities (RERC) in 2019. This program establishes 'steering committees' designed to work closely with rural communities, providing locally tailored workshops and guidance and helping to ensure "equitable access to the outdoors for residents and visitors alike." Partner communities have been established in 16 states, primarily in counties adjacent to or contiguous with a national park, forest, or monument. 

 The federal hiring freeze is very likely to negatively impact rural recreation economies. It is unclear whether programs like the RERC will survive, and as parks become more difficult to operate, tourists will be less satisfied, either withdrawing from or lashing out at surrounding communities. A 2023 National Park Visitor Spending Effects survey found that 325.5 million visitors spent $26.4 billion in communities near national parks, providing 415,400 jobs, $19.4 billion in labor income, and $55.6 billion in economic output overall. Ms. Pierno emphasized that slashing staff would have a devastating ripple effect on the business and communities that depend on parks for their survival. With the summer rush mere months away, many of these communities will have already invested in new infrastructure to support the influx of tourists. If that influx doesn't materialize, they face unprecedented revenue loss.

The federal funding freeze forecasts uncertainty for rural farmers and communities

Over the past month, President Trump's administration has been characterized by chaos and disorientation. Confusion surmounts as to what the future has in store, and the federal funding freeze is no exception. On January 27, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget released an administrative order freezing federal grants and loans, sparking public outrage from recipients scared of losing their jobs, educational funding, and livelihoods.

Although the order was rescinded only a few days after its implementation, and despite federal judges opposing the pause on funding, some government agencies are still withholding funding from those who need it. Troublingly, Vice President J.D. Vance chimed in on X regarding this battle between the executive and judicial branches by saying, "[j]udges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."

So, if you're wondering if there is a federal funding freeze currently, the answer seems to be that it depends on which government agency you're asking about. And if you're wondering whether there will be a federal funding freeze, that might depend on to what extent President Trump disregards the will of the federal courts.

In other words, who knows.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration's will-they-won't-they approach to the funding freeze has already begun impacting rural business owners, particularly farmers. 

For example, Hugh Lassen's family in Cherryfield, Maine, runs a small organic wild blueberry farm called Intervale Farm. The family shared with the Associated Press their worries that the pause on funding will keep them from receiving needed reimbursement for purchasing environmentally friendly equipment. Particularly, the Lassens spent $25,7000 on solar panels, a blueberry sorter, and 14 freezers under the impression they would receive an $8,000 grant through the Rural Energy for America Program. Now, they have no way of knowing whether they will get anything.

This uncertainty is only compounded by the reality that farmers are particularly vulnerable to unpredictable changes in the weather and changes in the economy. Farmers' ability to earn a living can vary significantly year-to-year due to circumstances beyond their control, such as natural disasters or inflation. As such, rural farmers will disproportionately feel the impact of Trump's federal budget cuts.

However, the looming threat of discontinued funding will not only hurt individual farmers. Rob Larew, a "sixth-generation farmer from West Virginia" writing for MSNBC, lays out numerous examples of the freeze's potential impacts. He argues that while the funding freeze has most immediately impacted "climate-smart agricultural projects," pushing rural families into bankruptcy will only serve to gut rural economies.

Larew forecasts a bleak future, where fewer farmers in rural areas will mean fewer families, and fewer families will result in "less money spent on local businesses, fewer kids in the local schools, and fewer tax dollars for roads, hospitals and emergency services." Further, Larew points out the potential ripple effects of a federal funding freeze, including disrupted market prices, limited food science research, fewer food safety inspectors, and an inability to maintain rural infrastructure. You can read more about issues relating to rural infrastructure here, here, and here.

One thing's for sure: The last thing small farmers need is more uncertainty. For now, however, uncertainty may be the only thing the Trump administration can promise business owners and farmers in rural communities. 

Has the far-right taken over rural France?

The leading far-right party in France is called the National Rally (Rassemblement National, RN). Some of its early members were affiliated with the Waffen-SS, a military unit under Nazi command during the second world war. The party is currently led by Jordan Bardella, one of France’s youngest politicians.

With Bardella, the party found a new face that helped its rebranding. His popularity is proof that what was once taboo is now normalized and has become mainstream. Today, voting for the far-right is no longer something to be ashamed of in France. RN’s president has unprecedented popularity due to his carefully curated social media presence. His Tik Tok account makes him look familiar and relatable. He also appeals to the unemployed, the working class and young people in rural areas. 

 

Vincent Lebrou, professor at Université de Franche-Comté told BBC News that the RN is attractive to people who live in rural areas because they are affected by unemployment and deindustrialization. The population is often less educated and experiences professional difficulties. Many Montbéliard citizens feel they have lost their safety and economic security, leading them to believe that the RN is the true solution. 

 

Last year, France held parliamentary elections. In Colombier-Saugnieu, 54% of voters cast their ballot for the far-right party. Citizens of that village explain they support the National Rally because they desire change. They say they want more dialogue, less violence and are heavily influenced by what they see on the news coverage of big cities, which results in blaming immigration. One could argue that people in the countryside are afraid of situations they aren’t directly experiencing and only judge what they see on television. The far-right clearly has an agenda, but people from big cities often highlight diversity and do not share the same fears, unlike what the media is trying to portray. 

 

In reality, the far-right’s rise is not exclusive to rural areas, cities like Nice are also affected. French media was quick to highlight a political divide between urban and rural areas but much of the voting pattern can be attributed to the demographics living in both areas. According to Mathieu Gallard, account director for Ipsos, rural France has more people from the working class, more retired citizens, and more individuals without higher education. This would explain the appeal of the far-right.

 

Nevertheless, generalizations should be made cautiously, as rural France is not monolithic. Regardless of where people live, voters are united by the cost of living. The far-right has convinced French citizens that economic growth will be achieved by combating immigration. Such a claim is questionable because in 2022, immigrants made up just over 10% of France’s population and a third had already obtained French nationality.

 

During a rally, Jordan Bardella told his crowd that French civilization would die as it is being submerged by migrants who will change France’s culture, customs, and way of life. While campaigning for the parliamentary elections, he made threats of mass expulsions, claiming the country needed to rid itself of delinquents, criminals, and foreign Islamists. Similarly, Trump has referred to immigrants as “aliens” and “animals”. He uses hateful and dehumanizing language to argue against a group of people. This rhetoric isn’t unique to the U.S. During World War II, fascists leaders in Europe targeted Jews, gay people, and other groups, labeling them as “social pollution”.

 

It is evident that the far-right is rising all around the world. It looks like society is slowly drifting back towards fascism. What could we do to make a significant change?

The inadequacy of urban criminal justice reform when applied to the rural

The criminal justice system implicates the rights of those swept up by it in numerous ways. If you have every watched a crime tv show you know defendants in the criminal system have the right to an attorney and the right to a speedy trial. These are important and are supposed to operate as safeguards against unfair treatment of defendants in our system. 

A problem arises when there are too few attorneys or legal resources to adequately handle the demand of defendants in a community. This problem is prevalent in rural areas, which are often in "legal deserts". The problem is often compounded by state legal ethic rules which require public defenders to limit their caseloads in order to provide high quality services and diligent representation to their clients.

There have been efforts to solve attorney shortages in rural areas. For example, a program in South Dakota offered stipends to attorneys who agreed to work in rural areas for a set amount of time. The program was able to place 32 attorneys in rural areas over the course of a decade by providing those attorneys with a stipend that allowed them to pay off student loans. But such programs are not necessarily viable in states like California where the cost of law school tuition is significantly higher, meaning stipends would put a far greater strain on the state budget. 

In the context of the criminal justice system, it is also apparent that attempting to offer prospective public defenders and assistant district attorneys more competitive pay does not completely solve the problem either. 

In an effort to ensure indigent clients receive better representation, King County in Washington has attempted to implement public defender case caps, limiting the amount of work a single attorney can take on. The decisions was based on the National Public Defense Workload Study which was published recently and offers some astounding findings about the amount of work public defenders take on.  For example: 

"In one widely reported instance, for example, attorneys assigned to a misdemeanor caseload at a metropolitan office providing public defense were each appointed to an average of 2,225 cases per year. Assuming that 40 hours each week of the year were devoted to nothing but client representation, this caseload would allow an attorney to spend an average of about 56 minutes on each client’s case. In that same office, attorneys assigned to a felony caseload were appointed to an annual average of more than 436 noncapital felonies, effectively allowing for only 4 hours and 47 minutes, on average, to defend clients facing decades in prison."

The report also briefly cites the experience of Rhonda Covington, the sole public defender of two rural Louisiana counties, who had 265 open cases to handle by herself.  

Case caps are certainly one way to improve the quality of service indigent defendants receive from their appointed defenders. It also aims to solve the shortage of attorneys in indigent defense roles by making the career more sustainable. However, this reform doesn't appear to be a solution tailored to the situation rural communities find themselves in. Case caps may work in an urban setting where the effect would presumably be attracting more of the already existing attorney population to the public defender role, but rural areas there is no preexisting adequate population of attorneys to attract.  

Even movements like progressive prosecution place an emphasis on diversion which requires rehabilitation facilities, programs, and resources that rural places may not have. Non-enforcement, policies adopted by prosecutorial offices to not pursue lower level charges, also present a problem for rural areas. While not wasting resources on lower level crimes may result in better service for some defendants, rural areas are constantly battling the opioid crisis and other drug problems. Crimes involving drugs, like simple possession, are usually considered "lower level." Without bringing people struggling with addiction to court, it becomes hard to mandate treatment for them. (It also demands we ask why courts have had to be so active in addressing an issue that is better handled by healthcare professionals).

These issues demand solutions rooted in programs that revolve around health care and highlights how the justice system is attempting to fill a role it was never meant to, and failing to do so. The system, which continues to evolve to meet the demands of justice of large urban areas, has not contemplated the unique needs of the rural community. We need to reevaluate the way the criminal justice system is structured and operates in rural America and make some radical changes. 

Death of the American Dream for rural America

Is the American Dream ("the Dream") dead? The Dream posits that success results from work and sacrifice rather than the circumstances in which one is born. However, in recent years, some have argued that the so-called Dream is illusory, used only as a "strategic and intricate device crafted to keep you where you are." Antagonists propose that the Dream only adds wealth to the rich while keeping dream-chasers on the hamster wheel. 

The Dream can be measured by analyzing generational mobility, which refers to whether an individual's social and economic opportunities depend upon their parents' income or social status. Less generational mobility suggests that the Dream is dead or dying, and more mobility indicates the opposite. Upward mobility means that an individual was born to parents in the bottom 25% of income earners and that they later fall within the top 25% of income earners in America. 

According to most data, residents of rural counties are more likely to be persistently poor, with at least a 20 percent poverty rate persisting for at least 30 years. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, "In terms of poverty, college attainment, teenage births, divorce, death rates from heart disease and cancer, reliance on federal disability insurance and male labor-force participation, rural counties now rank the worst."

According to some researchers, five factors directly correlate with generational mobility: (1) residential segregation, (2) income inequality, (3) school quality, (4) social capital, and (5) family structure. Rural counties have lower incomes, levels of educational attainment, life expectancies, and limited access to health insurance and healthcare providers than their urban counterparts. Why, then, do some rural counties have the highest upward mobility rates in the country but also some of the lowest? 

Perhaps another factor—the ease of migration from rural communities to urban ones—can explain this seeming disparity. Is the solution to "attaining" the Dream to be born into a rural community and leave as soon as possible for an urban one? If leaving is the only answer, should the Dream even be considered a dream?

Supposing that achieving the Dream for rural people is premised on leaving their community, each pursuit diminishes the Dream for those left behind. If the best and brightest pursue education or economic opportunities elsewhere, growth remains stagnant for the home community. Published by The Sun, a U.C. Davis law student references Fresno's inability to attract educated professionals, a phenomenon called "brain drain," the migration of educated and skilled individuals away from their home region. His solution to attract young professionals includes increasing career opportunities, housing, arts, entertainment, and sports.

While stagnant growth may be one side effect of the Dream, one more insidious issue is the Dream's tarnishing effect. If everyone can succeed, why do unsuccessful people exist? Like Vice President J.D. Vance, proponents of the Dream argue that lack of success results from laziness. However, those proponents forget what the evidence proves—a lack of resources impacts the likelihood of success. Often, proponents of the Dream ignore their privilege to bolster their ego and achievements.

Like most things, the Dream may be aspirational in most parts of America. Nevertheless, it seemingly impedes and damages rural America's vitality. It is okay to recognize that dreams vary between people and places. Arguably, for rural America, the question is not whether the Dream is dead but whether it should be.

Anti-trans policies hit hard in rural America

In his second inaugural address, President Trump declared “As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.”

Transgender individuals account for roughly 1.6 million people in the United States, accounting for only roughly .48% of the US population. Roughly one in six transgender individuals live in a rural area.

Over the past decade, anti-trans rhetoric and policies have become a focal point in the culture war for the Republican Party and the far right. The ACLU is currently tracking 388 laws that target LGBTQ+ individuals, many of which specifically target transgender individuals and their civil rights (from gender-affirming care, bathroom access, ability to participate in sports, curriculum content, drag show bans, redefining sex, and more)(for a prior blog post about anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, see here). 26 states currently ban gender-affirming care for minors in some capacity (16 of which are being challenged in court; 10 states have bans that are currently enforced). These laws all explicitly target trans individuals, with all 26 states having exceptions for puberty blockers, hormone treatment, and gender affirming surgery if the patients are cisgender. In addition to laws targeting transgender minor's access to gender-affirming care, seven states currently have laws that aim to restrict access to gender-affirming care for transgender adults by targeting insurance policies. 

Anti-trans rhetoric and laws have clear implications for the safety of the trans community. On January 27th, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military, echoing an order he signed in his first term. The order is estimated to affect around 15,000 military personnel, which is sure to affect not only their livelihoods (if they are discharged from the service), but also has the strong possibility of forcing transgender service members back into the closet in order to keep their position and station. The order also included language that directly insinuated that transgender individuals were not mentally healthy, were physically unable to serve, and were unable to have "the humility and selflessness required of a service member." 

The Human Rights Campaign has tracked the deaths of 265 individuals from 2018 to 2024 whose deaths were caused by "anti-trans motivations." In 2024, 32% of these victims were misgendered or misnamed in the press after being murdered. 

Anti-trans laws, in addition to restricting access to care, have a significant impact on the mental health of trans youth. According to the Trevor Project:

From 2018 to 2022, 48 anti-transgender laws were enacted in the U.S. across 19 different state governments. The study examined the causal relationship between these laws and suicide risk over this five-year time period, using national survey data collected from more than 61,000 transgender and nonbinary youth. Results concluded that, during this time period, anti-transgender laws significantly increased incidents of past-year suicide attempts among transgender and nonbinary youth by as much as 72%.

While anti-trans rhetoric and policies have a clear negative impact on the trans community, its effects hit especially hard in rural areas. Being transgender in a rural community means your access to much needed support is likely lower than compared to your urban counterparts. One study found that 47% of rural transgender individuals do not feel emotionally supported by their families; and that "only 16.3% of rural transgender adults said they felt supported by their families, compared to 30.4% of urban transgender adults." Further exacerbating this lack of emotional support is that for trans individuals in rural communities, is that they are likely to be the only member of the community who is not cisgender.

It is known that general support (from family, or others in your social sphere) and health access are incredibly helpful in reducing the risk of suicide ideation for trans individuals. In rural areas however, trans individuals are less likely to have access to the technology needed for virtual support, less likely to find a supportive in-person community, and less likely to have access to medical care within their community (for prior blog post about LGBTQ+ issues in rural medical care, see here).

When it comes to accessing medical care, trans individuals are likely to face even more obstacles than those already faced in rural communities. Roughly one in three rural transgender individuals experience some form of discrimination by their healthcare provider. A third of rural transgender patients further report needing to inform their provider about their specific health care needs in order to receive adequate treatment (for prior blog posts about attempts in Colorado to educate rural healthcare providers on transgender care, see here). 

This lack of access and acceptance from medical providers carries a heavy toll. According to the 2018 Colorado Transgender Health Survey, having access to inclusive care resulted in being less likely to delay care due to discrimination, being less likely to have depression, and lower rates of attempted suicide. 

It is increasingly normal to see and hear anti-trans rhetoric, and increasingly common to see the introduction of anti-trans legislation. These anti-trans actions have very real, very painful, and very lethal effects on our fellow Americans. We must actively work towards supporting the trans community, especially those who live in rural areas. 

These boots were made for immigrants

I’ve always felt at home in a grocery store. I enjoy walking through the produce section and picking out a fresh bag of green grapes. I love meandering around the bakery to see if they have a slice of cake that peaks my interest. Grocery stores hold a special place in my heart because they help me feel a little closer to my grandparents—Chinese immigrants who owned a grocery store in Houston, Texas during the 1960s. 

My family’s story mirrors the stories of many immigrant families who move to the United States and set up shop in rural, or “rural-adjacent,” areas. In fact, immigrants made up 37% of rural growth since the year 2000. However, as noted by a blog post from December 2024 and as we’ve seen during the first month of the new presidential administration, communities and small businesses in rural areas are the ones who will be hit the hardest by new executive orders and funding freezes. These economic struggles, combined with the fact that children from rural families don’t necessarily vie for control of the family business. This isn't like in the show Succession, making it difficult for small family businesses to stay afloat as parents get older and population sizes dwindle. 

The Daily Yonder recently reported on the USDA funding freeze, quoting the House Democrats of the Agriculture and Appropriations committee’s letter to the USDA:  

To be clear, the people impacted by this funding freeze are hardworking, rural Americans and small businesses.

Immigrants own approximately 36% of accommodation and food services businesses throughout the United States. In addition to the recent need to stay vigilant about potential ICE raids, immigrant families who own small businesses must worry about their families’ livelihoods as government funding decreases. This is especially concerning in California, given the long history of immigrant-owned small businesses in the Golden State. In June of 2024, the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) highlighted its support of immigrant families moving to rural areas: 

Immigrants in California are long-settled residents powering the state’s workforce and small businesses and supporting economic growth. California’s immigrant population makes up 27 percent of the state’s total population, and nearly 10 percent of those individuals reside in rural regions.

In 2024, California increased funding for local governments to expand immigrant integration in rural areas. GO-Biz’s Senior Deputy Director for Global and Strategic Program Planning and External Affairs, Emily Desai, stated: 

We know there are unique challenges in reaching and supporting immigrant communities in the underserved parts of our state. These grants represent our commitment to empowering local governments to foster economic mobility and social inclusion among California’s immigrant populations, no matter where they reside.

Historically, small businesses in rural areas, including those owned by both local and immigrant families, had to rely solely on the support of their own community. My grandparents, for example, made their living from customers in the neighborhood and word-of-mouth. Likewise, restaurants like the Chicago Cafe in Woodland, have remained community staples for decades because of local support. 

In January of 2024, Professor Jack Chin led a research project that focused on the Chicago Cafe, believed to be California’s oldest Chinese restaurant. According to the article by Carla Meyer of the UC Davis news-service, Chicago Cafe has operated since at least 1910 and has been run by the Fong family for three generations. The restaurant was opened by the current owner, Andy Fong’s, great grandfather, who immigrated to Woodland, California from China’s Guangdong province. 

In 2018, an article by the Center for American Progress highlighted how immigrants and their families have slowed the decline of rural populations over the past few decades, noting: 

[M]any rural communities are either experiencing a slowdown in their rate of population decline or a resurgence as immigrants and their families, as well as refugees, move into these communities in search of opportunity. In many rural communities, these new residents open small businesses, provide critically needed health care services, and supply labor for meatpacking plants, small manufacturers, dairies, fruit and vegetable farms, and other enterprises.

Unfortunately, immigrant families’ ability to slow the rural population decline doesn’t always mean that their children will stay in the same place. Last week, a Patch article reported that Chicago Cafe is up for sale. With the third-generation owners’ children transitioning to different careers, the article quoted The Sacramento Bee, stating: 

Paul and Nancy Fong decided to sell their business after UC Davis professor Gabriel “Jack” Chin as part of a research project determined Chicago Cafe could be the oldest Chinese restaurant open in the country, yielding a spike in media coverage and customers that proved challenging for the aging couple and their one employee…

Chicago Cafe’s sale reminds me a lot of my grandparents’ story. One of the reasons I grew up hearing stories about my grandparents’ store, rather than getting to experience it myself, is because the land was taken over by eminent domain in the 1980s. The store was later transformed into a state highway. Still, I will never forget the pride that I saw in my Grandpa’s face when he told me about the lifelong friendships he made with customers of the store. Because of their small business, my grandparents were able to integrate into their new community and raise my dad and his siblings. 

By opening small businesses and adding to the available workforce in rural areas, immigrants have become indispensable in these communities as they provide vital services and delicious food. Hopefully we can keep this tradition going as small business owners struggle with ongoing economic, social, and personal concerns. 

Bridging the attitude gap

During my first year of college, I was shocked to hear one of my friends had never seen a cow in the flesh until she came to UC Davis. It was undeniable that she was a city girl, born and raised. Although Davis is not a large urban area, she nevertheless enrolled to attend UC Davis because she was attracted to the small college-town vibe.

As for me, the first time I saw a cow was when I was in kindergarten. The school had brought in cows so the students could learn more about livestock. Cows, cowboy boots, and tractors were normal, everyday sightings for me. I grew up in an agricultural town, which is best described as a rural-adjacent, suburban town. Although my hometown was not a remote rural town, I grew up with a positive attitude toward rural places. Specifically, I appreciated the labor that went into growing the produce I found on my table.

However, not everyone shares this positive attitude toward rural areas. A study from 2018 stated that 53% of urban residents do not believe rural people share the same values as them. Meanwhile 58% of rural residents do not believe urbanites share their values. Many scholars have commented on this urbanormativity phenomenon. For example, in Fulkerson and Thomas’s book, Urbanormativity: Reality, Representation, and Everyday Life, the authors discuss the perspective of urbanites toward rural residents:

[T]he residents of the swampy marsh of colonial North Carolina were widely believed to consume mud in order to survive, since farming was nearly impossible. The people of this “wasted” land were seen as sickly, stupid, lazy, and unproductive. Why else would people be content to stay in such a foreboding place?

Although cities may be an economic hub for wealth and job opportunities, urban and rural places have an undeniable link. With rural hospitals closing, many rural residents depend on urban centers to provide access to specialized medical treatment. On the other hand, urban places also rely on rural resources. A prime example is Los Angeles’ need for water from rural places:

A July 2024 report from the department found that climate change could threaten to shrink water supplies in the State Water Project — a water storage and delivery system that stretches from the western foothills of the Sierra to Riverside County — by nearly one-fourth in the next 20 years, prompting officials to call for bolstering the project’s system of reservoirs, pumps and aqueducts for the state’s future climate.

So, an important question presents itself: how can we bridge the attitude gap between urban and rural residents? Although I love to see every urban school bring livestock on campus, it is an unlikely prospect. However, urban schools can provide more educational opportunities to talk to students and increase awareness about rural places. For example, other than providing food, schools can discuss how rural areas generate energy that powers many urban cities. Hopefully, for these students, the first time they see livestock is not well into adulthood.

For more information on urbanormativity, see Coronavirus in rural America (Part LV): Urbanormativity in policy making and Metro centricity in media attitudes about the Newton County hog CAFO.

Addressing the rural internet deficit by amending the federal BEAD program

Nearly 25% of rural Americans lack access to high speed broadband internet. Without internet access, geographically isolated communities are growing increasingly technologically isolated. This phenomenon -- the rural internet deficit -- harms rural American communities in a number of ways. 

To start, rural communities lacking adequate internet access, relative to their urban counterparts, are placed at a significant economic disadvantage. Studies indicate that "increased broadband access contributes to job and population growth, lower unemployment rates, and more business formation."

The rural internet deficit also has a direct negative impact on public health. On this point, the American Public Health Association has noted the following: 

[Today], it is almost impossible to consult a physician without access to telecommunications technology in the United States. The nation's health care systems . . . have shifted most ambulatory care to telehealth, primarily video visits. . . . Without [broadband internet access], patients cannot fully use telehealth in all its forms: asynchronous messaging via patient portals, remote monitoring devices such as blood pressure monitors, or synchronous video connections to consult with a physician.

Additionally, as noted by the National Center for Education Statistics, "students who do not have access to the Internet at home may be at risk for negative academic outcomes." 

So, what are the causes of the rural internet deficit?

The rural internet deficit can be primarily understood as a function of the relative spatial isolation of rural communities. As outlined by one Pew report

[h]ousing in rural areas, including low-income housing, is often spread out across greater distances than it is in urban regions. This increases the cost of building out the infrastructure needed to provide broadband access and means there are relatively few customers to subscribe to the service. As a result, [internet service providers] [or "ISPs"] do not see a favorable return on investment for deploying that infrastructure and often require federal or state subsidies to do so.

In addition to spatial isolation, lower median incomes amongst rural households decrease the likelihood that a given rural family will personally invest into broadband internet. The fact that many rural communities are home to older populations has also been cited as a factor driving the rural internet deficit. 

So, what are some possible solutions to address the rural internet crisis? 

In light of the lack of incentive that ISPs have to invest into rural internet infrastructure, it comes as no surprise that most of the proposed solutions, thus far, have centered on government funding. For instance, in 2021, the Biden Administration rolled out the Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment ("BEAD") program. This program sought to address the rural internet deficit by, amongst other things, providing federal subsidies to private companies that invest into rural internet infrastructure. 

However, over the course of the last four years, the BEAD program has proven unsuccessful in bridging the rural internet divide. Reports indicate that, to date, the program has not brought a single new internet connection to a rural household. 

One possible reason for BEAD's failure is that the program has failed to address the primary cause of the rural internet deficit -- geography. 

Currently, BEAD precludes companies willing to establish new rural internet connections via satellite from taking advantage of the program's subsidies. Rather, only companies willing to install fiber-optic cables qualify for BEAD subsidies. This is problematic because installing fiber-optic lines in rural communities is highly expensive and time consuming, due to geographical nature of rural areas. As noted by one report,  "[c]ost estimates for laying fiber-optic cable range from more than $12 per foot in rural areas with soft ground to $20 per foot — which is $105,600 per mile — in rocky terrain." 

So, one possible solution to the rural internet deficit would simply be to amend BEAD to allow satellite internet provides to take a advantage of the program's subsidies. By doing so, the geographic hurdles that have historically stymied the development of rural internet infrastructure would become a non-issue. Additionally, in contrast to fiber-optic internet, satellite internet connection can be established in a home within hours. 

In sum, the rural internet deficit harms the overall well-being of rural communities in a number of ways. The primary cause of the lack of internet access in rural America is the geographical nature of these communities; specifically, because rural communities are so spatially isolated, there is a high cost associated with developing rural internet infrastructure. These high costs, in turn, disincentivize ISPs from investing into rural areas. One possible solution to addressing the rural internet deficit would be to amend the federal BEAD program, so that satellite internet providers may qualify for BEAD subsidies. This solution would provide for new rural internet connections, while taking the limiting geographical considerations out of the equation.

A Slam dunk: women’s high school basketball in rural areas

As a young girl on my high school’s varsity basketball team, I faced inequalities plaguing women’s sports in general: although we had a better record, only the boy’s team had cheerleaders, students made attending the boy’s games, not ours, a part of their social life, and when we scrimmaged with the boys during practice, we could count on not being passed the ball.

All that to say, outside of our parents, my team and I didn’t feel externally supported or valued for our skills.

During my sophomore year, my suburban high school had an away game at Ramona High School, situated in the rural town of Ramona in San Diego County which, as of 2020, had a population of about 21,468.

The particulars of the game are lost to time, but I do remember playing in front of the loudest and biggest crowd I’d ever faced. We weren’t rivals with Ramona, and this wasn’t a playoff game. It was a random day in December in a town once known as The Turkey Capital of the World. Yet, parents, students, and what felt like the whole town, was packed into the stands chanting and cheering for their team. While it wasn’t fun to be the opposing team in that scenario (and yes, we did get crushed), I marveled at what it would be like to have a strong support system.

Of course, I don’t mean to imply female athletes in rural areas don’t face the same problems affecting female athletes at large. In her past blog, “Are rural girls more interested in sports than their urban counterparts,” Professor Lisa Pruitt wrote that her rural hometown of Jasper, Arkansas followed boys teams more closely than girls teams, and it took litigation in 1980 to get the girls basketball teams from playing 3-on-3 on half-court to playing full-court 5-on-5.

Thus, while acknowledging similarities in challenges I faced on my team and what the female athletes at Ramona likely faced, the strong community support I saw almost ten years ago was completely foreign to me, and inspires me to look at high school sports in rural areas, specifically in regards to women’s sports.

According to a 2021 Aspen Institute Report, nationally 73 percent of rural public high schools offer interscholastic sports, more than the 70 percent of suburban or 63 percent of urban schools. And, when sports are offered, rural students are the most likely to play. According to the same study, 42 percent of rural students play on high school teams, compared to 41 percent of suburban students and 33 percent of urban students. Therefore, in general, high school sports seem to be more part of everyday life in rural areas compared to suburban areas.

High participation in sports could be, as Professor Pruitt discusses in her blog, because many high schoolers already perform physical activity in their daily lives on a farm or the countryside, or because sports is an attractive option when there is little else to do.

In “Health needs and challenges of rural adolescents,” the authors describe how focus groups in rural communities expressed concern that the lack of healthy forms of recreation in rural areas leads to boredom. Thus, it would make sense that rural residents use sports, both participating in or watching, as an accessible, healthy activity to combat boredom.

Often, I’ve seen the discussion about rural areas and high school sports focus on football. For example, in “Football in rural America bonds communities together” for The Mountain Citizen, Kyle Lovern, a journalist in Tug Valley, explains how people in rural communities, especially Appalachia or the South, love football. He describes people showing up to games on Friday nights:

 [They] may have a family connection with a specific team, the cheerleading squad or the marching band. Or [they] may just be the alumni of a certain high school who still loves to cheer and support [their] team … People rally around sports teams of all kinds everywhere, but it seems even more special in rural areas and small southern towns.

 Likely, this enthusiasm translates to basketball. In Ramona, people could have had loose connections to the team and still showed up to watch. Additionally, girl’s basketball may be more popular in Ramona than my hometown and mean more to everyone involved. The survey by the Aspen Institute found that rural girls play basketball at a higher rate than urban girls, and rural students in general had the highest rates of participation in basketball. Additionally, winning games and making their family feel proud seemed to matter the most to rural students, and rural girls in particular.

I checked Ramona’s record the year we played them, and they were an impressive 18-8 overall. It becomes a chicken or the egg question — did people only attend that game because the team was good, or was the team good because of consistently strong attendance? The under-appreciated high school version of me likes to think their success can be attributed, at least in part, to the support of their community.