In Kansas and Missouri, why are rural lawmakers interfering in cities’ affairs?

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly made rural redevelopment a central part of her first speech to lawmakers.“The majority of our 105 counties lost population last year, and for many years prior to that,” she said. “Whether it’s roads, broadband, housing, or agriculture, they need our support.”Maybe they’ll get it. The Kansas House has a new committee aimed at revitalizing rural areas. Across the state line in Missouri, Gov. Mike Parson wants $5 million to expand broadband internet. “We currently have about 10 school districts and many rural communities that lack access to high speed broadband,” he told the legislature. “That is unacceptable.”Such appeals to rural development in Kansas and Missouri are pretty common. Perhaps, though, it’s a good time to ask a fundamental question: Why?Why should urban and suburban areas care about, or help pay for, rural development of broadband, schools, housing or anything else?But the problem now is obvious: Those closest to rural culture are leaving for the cities, in droves. One-fourth of Kansas counties have fewer than 3,000 residents. Some rural Kansas counties may be all but abandoned by 2064, according to one study. At that point, 80 percent of all Kansans will live in urban or suburban communities. Most people living in cities and the suburbs are quite happy to help out their rural neighbors, by supporting school districts with 170 students, or backing taxes for rural roads and bridges, or better internet service.What they do object to, increasingly, is the interference of rural lawmakers in local urban affairs, from guns and taxes to trash bags and labor laws. Because rural interests are over-represented in our politics, that interference often becomes law, and it rankles.