Rural development is not a panacea for all ills in the nation’s urban core.
The U.S. Census Bureau reports that more than 80 percent of all American cities have fewer than 1 million residents, and that most of those are concentrated in rural areas.
Some communities have embraced a hybrid approach, where rural areas are often built on top of the city, where they’re generally subsidized by the federal government.
Other communities are stuck with their urban-rural divide, with both sides having to contend with the effects of rising rents, a lack of affordable housing, and rising crime rates.
Rural development programs have helped some cities create communities of opportunity, but they’ve also contributed to the city’s urban sprawl.
What we do know about rural development in the U.A.C.C., a nonpartisan group that studies rural development issues, says the lack of good rural development policies and programs has hurt rural communities.
We know there’s a big disparity in the kind of development that’s happening in rural and urban areas.
We also know that rural communities have to compete for federal funding and support from the federal and state governments, and we know that the policies and structures that rural development is built on have been largely absent in recent years.
We don’t have any good policies for rural development programs.
The problem is compounded by a lack, for example, of federal funding for rural projects, said Matt Anderson, who directs the Urban Planning Initiative at the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.
Anderson said rural development has often been targeted by both parties in Congress for federal aid because of its high cost.
The Urban Institute and the Rural Development Policy Institute, two independent organizations, report that rural infrastructure projects are often the most expensive federal projects, with the U,S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development providing a combined $8.5 billion to rural communities in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.
The federal government is also heavily invested in urban projects, providing $1.3 billion a year in fiscal 2018 and $1 billion a week in 2019.
And rural development projects, according to Anderson, often get less than their urban counterparts because of the lack.
In rural counties, the rural development funding gap is even larger, he said.
For example, the U of A, which provides funding for development in rural counties as part of its urban-urban partnership, received $4.6 billion in rural development assistance between 2010 and 2017, according the Rural development Policy Institute.
The Rural Development Assistance Program (RDAP) program for rural counties is also one of the most underfunded programs in the country, Anderson said.
While rural development provides support for projects, the programs are sometimes not funded to the extent that urban projects would be.
“There’s no clear formula to work out a fair rural development program,” Anderson said, adding that it’s important for communities to understand that they don’t always have the same kind of access to federal money that urban communities do.
And rural development isn’t always a good fit for communities, said John Hirsch, who chairs the Urban Development Policy Initiative at Harvard University.
“Rural development in itself is not always a win for rural communities, and urban development is a win in the long run.”
Rural development in America is often a win-win.
A rural development project would provide funding for infrastructure projects, like roads, and a new hospital, which would create jobs.
Rural communities would benefit from new businesses and new housing.
The city would have more affordable housing and would attract a new group of tourists and residents.
The result is that a community would be better off for decades to come.
For some, that’s a positive outcome.
For others, however, the benefits of rural development are often limited, and the rural area isn’t economically viable.
The rural areas that have benefited most from urban development programs in recent decades have largely been rural counties that have struggled financially, such as parts of the Carolinas, said David O. Jones, a senior research associate at the Brookings Institution.
Rural communities are generally at a disadvantage because of their proximity to interstate highways, which are often clogged with traffic, he added.
“If you go from one side of the country to the other side of it, it’s very, very, extremely congested,” Jones said.
“It’s very difficult for a rural area to maintain the same level of economic vitality and access to capital.”
The lack of rural housing has also contributed.
Rural areas have historically been more likely to experience severe economic hardship than urban areas, according a 2016 report by the National Rural Housing Coalition, a nonprofit organization that promotes and defends rural development.
That’s because rural areas have fewer homeowners, who are more likely than urban residents to have to move.
But a rural community’s access to housing also often depends on its proximity to other cities.
If a rural home is in