If you were employed by the federal government, you would have to look no farther than your fellow agencies in order to satisfy the question's quindecimal requirements. That's because, according to this story in the Washington Post, there are fifteen separate definitions for "rural" and they differ according to which department is doing the defining.
Thus, an area may be rural according to one department, which says that if fewer than 50,000 people live in a particular area, it is rural. But it may not be according to another, which says that the urban threshold is crossed at 2,500 people. And it may not be according to yet another agency, which uses a definition of rural that adds to the number of people the location of the area, and only areas within certain parts of Hawaii and Puerto Rico qualify.
The story says that the United States Senate will be considering a bill that, among other things, pares down the number of federal definitions of "rural" to the single digits. Just barely, though -- if the law passes, there will hereafter be only nine definitions of rural used by the federal government. Which leaves open the question of whether or not, if you gathered one person from each differently-defining department and placed them in a single community, would that community be "rural." It probably would, unless it was in Hawaii or Puerto Rico. But if I was living in Hawaii, I would probably not care whether the silly folks in Washington, D.C. thought I lived in a rural area, just as long as they never came to visit.
No comments:
Post a Comment