For the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the definition of “rural” versus “town” constitutes a legal distinction that could determine the outcome of a lawsuit brought against Marathon County, Wisconsin, by the unincorporated town of Rib Mountain. The case involves a dispute over the county’s requirement that all unincorporated areas of the county have uniform addresses to aid emergency responders.
In 2016, Marathon County enacted an ordinance to create a uniform addressing system, giving each location in the unincorporated portions of the county – including unincorporated towns – a unique address primarily to guide fire protection, emergency medical services and law enforcement to homes and businesses.
Rib Mountain’s town board objected to the requirement and sued the county. Marathon County Circuit Court upheld the county ordinance, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed.
Now the county has asked the state’s Supreme Court to consider whether the unincorporated town fits under the definition of “rural,” which would make it subject to the new addressing requirements.Rib Mountain is said to be a suburb of the county seat, Wausau, and its population is about 7,000 according to the Courthouse News story. The population of Marathon County is about 135,000, but it covers a vast land area. According to Wikipedia, Wausau has a population of nearly 40,000, and Rib Mountain is but one of its six suburbs.
Marathon County Corporation attorney Scott Corbett, responding to a question from a Supreme Court Justice during oral arguments, conceded that the statute in question "uses ‘rural’ in a couple of different ways.” Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet had asked, "Are you saying 'rural' means 'town' means 'unincorporated'?"
On aspect of the confusion here is that the Wisconsin statute that authorizes counties to require uniform addresses does not define “rural.” The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, considering the issue, used the dictionary definition.
The Chief Justice of Wisconsin, Patience D. Roggensack, asked Rib Mountain's attorney, David Dietrich, why the town objects to uniform addresses.
What is the big problem for the town to go along with the ordinance? The county is not being punitive.Dietrich responded by noting that Rib Mountain “was given the opportunity to cooperate... and in the end it chose to keep portions of the town the way they are, and they have the right to do that.” So, it seems the sensitivity is partly about the local politics of one entity telling another what to do
This debate over how to define rural reminds me of entire sections of past law review articles where I have sought to define rural for various legal purposes, sometimes surveying judicial and legislative definitions in the process. See my Rural Rhetoric and Gender, Geography and Rural Justice articles, for starters, which both include not only ecological definitions but also cultural ones. Here's one of my favorite definitions of rural from a judicial opinion, this from the West Virginia Supreme Court in Stephens v. Raleigh Country Board of Education (1979):
[A] “rural community” may be distinguished by its dominant character as a social and economic unit founded in rural, land-based interests. It is inhabited, in the main, by country people, who live a country life, and who engage in country pursuits. Its residents are removed from the immediacy of urban and suburban environs, and are not immediately tied to any city or urban area; they work, socialize and politick as an independent, integral community. There will, of course, always be some exceptions. In nearly every community there will be at least a few people who commute to a city for business or social purposes. However, the presence of a few such people does not destroy the rural character of a community, so long as development has occurred in such a manner as not to exclude the predominance of agricultural pursuits and rural activities.
No comments:
Post a Comment