In a bid to bolster its rural population, Kansas has put together an incentive package for people who agree to move to designated “rural opportunity zones” from other states.  The package includes a five-year break from state income taxes and a chance to have up to $15,000 in student loans paid off … if you stay for five years. 

Would you? 

What if there was a promise of free land?  Or tax exemptions and rebates – such as those offered in Rosthern, Saskatchewan and Burnet, Texas – if you build a new home in a designated area? 

In an effort to attract residents, lure entrepreneurs, and stay viable, many small communities offer relocation incentives.  But do they work?  The answer is … it depends. 

According to research and prevailing opinion, those communities located within an easy commute of a larger urban centre or near a fabulous natural amenity are more likely to maintain – or grow – their populations due to access to further employment prospects, enhanced services, or exceptional recreational or lifestyle opportunities.  For these communities, incentives may make sense.  But for those that aren’t locationally-blessed  … the prospects for survival can seem bleak. 

Yet there are also many communities working to buck this trend, drawing on both creative ideas and on the good old-fashioned community spirit that small towns are known for.  Places such as Warner, Alberta (population 331) who – with little else than an ice arena and a dedicated hockey coach – founded a nationally-renowned, all-girls hockey schoolor the small Quebec village of Notre-Dame-de-Ham, whose residents have rallied to create a citizens’ cooperative that is a combined convenience store/gas station/restaurant serving the larger area.

Beyond incentives, it really comes down to the collective will and efforts a community puts forth in order to survive.

What do you think?

Related Posts:

• What Makes a Community Livable? Part I: Sense of Place
• How to Encourage Change
• Commitment vs. Engagement
• Six Examples of Community Beautification
• Do Looks Matter?

(This is the first of a short-term series of posts in which I explore some shared traits of livable communities … I hope you’ll join in the conversation to share what “livable” means to you!)

I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about what makes a neighbourhood or community livable. Is it the physical characteristics? Location? People? Amenities? Walkability?

There’s no one right or wrong answer … instead, it tends to be defined at the local level, by those recognizing a unique identity and placing a high value on the processes that affect growth and change to maintain or enhance local character.

Without a doubt, livable communities are deeply aware of their character.

But character evolves from the weaving together of many elements to create a sense of comfort. Function. Attractiveness. Like a blanket, it is the combination of such threads that make up a community’s unique sense of place … those things that add up to a feeling that a community is special, distinct from anywhere else.*

The most important thread to consider is the community’s natural setting; it is intrinsically linked to an area’s character and affects its economic vitality. This fundamental relationship is most easily seen in resort communities such as Tofino, Whistler, or Saint Andrews here in Canada or in places such as Vail, Colorado or Atlantic City in the U.S.

Unfortunately, not everyone has an ocean, forest, or a mountain on their front step. But what other communities have done – to varying degrees of success – is place a high value on the protection of local, natural resources, using civic participation to identify assets that are important.

For example, are maintaining open, prairie sky views necessary for citizens? Then maybe a local plan affirming that every citizen should have an unencumbered view is created, including controls on the heights of new and redeveloped buildings. Wetlands? Unique flora or fauna? The same process still applies, but will result in appropriate, community-specific arrangements that are generally accepted by all.

Beyond a community’s natural setting, heritage preservation – of buildings as well as districts – is also a key thread to help cultivate a sense of place. Development regulations, sensitive rehabilitation, or architectural guidelines can all create a sense of authenticity that may leverage new investment, tourism, or smart growth.

Finally, incorporating pedestrian-friendly features makes a community feel comfortable, multi-use areas encourage better use of space, and clear, distinct signage – guided by local context – all contribute to creating a warm, welcoming sense of place … just like a favorite blanket.

This essential balance of nature and development is what makes communities today livable … and sustainable.

Does your community or neighbourhood have a defined sense of place?

*As defined by Stokes, S. M., Watson, A. E. and Mastran, S. S. in Saving America’s Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation (2nd ed.).

Related Posts:

• Would a Tax Break Make You Think About Living in a Small Town?
• How to Encourage Change
• Commitment vs. Engagement
• Six Examples of Community Beautification
• Do Looks Matter?

Ahhh, spring. A time when a young farmer’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of how he’s going to manoeuvre his machinery down country roads. Or … maybe not.

Most folks who live in rural-urban areas are well aware that their roads – designed primarily during the early-to-mid-20^th century – are now handling loads and traffic that the original builders could not have imagined. Heavier grain trucks, manure tanks, semi-trailers hauling commodities, as well as rising numbers of non-farm residents who live and work in neighbouring areas, have all increased the demands on local roads.

As rail lines are quietly being abandoned and as larger and heavier vehicles haul products over longer distances on rural pavements, the financial ability of local governments to maintain and improve rural road networks has been diminishing. When rail services leave a community, for instance, their tax revenues are lost. It’s the same with rural migration; local revenues available for roads is reduced when people leave their rural communities.

Yet increased traffic increases the need for higher road maintenance budgets, forcing local governments to raise taxes or lobby for higher provincial or state contributions. Failing that, local governments are forced to decrease the level of road maintenance. And decreased maintenance increases transportation costs in the form of higher travel times, accident rates, vehicle maintenance costs, and fuel costs, for instance. In the most extreme cases, local officials have resorted to grinding up paved roads and converting them to gravel to save money.

Ultimately, increased transportation costs influence the competitiveness of a region.

Since rural areas often have limited financial resources, rural transportation concerns need to be addressed by regional and provincial or state planning processes. Rural roadways compete with urban areas for funding and, if funding is calculated simply on volume, it often translates into limited financing for rural road projects, leading to an overall decline in road network sustainability.

Rural roads are vital to the movement of valuable commodities.

The strength of many regional economies relies greatly on the quality of its transportation system, particularly its roadways, which link rural communities with national and international markets. At the end of the day, if a region wishes to maintain its economic prosperity, then rural transportation – especially roads – must become a priority.

Related Posts:

• Canada.com Featured Contributor: Discussing the Dirt on Rural Transportation Infrastructure
• Affordable and Appropriate Infrastructure
• If You Build It, They Might Not Come
• Demolition Before Renewal
• The Importance of Lines & Signs