Micro versus Metro
By Albert B. Kelly
As we speak, a group of federal bureaucrats is pushing the federal government on an issue that could have a significant impact on 144 communities of varying size nationwide and specifically Vineland, Millville, and Bridgeton. This group of bureaucrats is trying to get the federal government to basically reclassify these 144 communities as “micropolitan” areas as opposed to the current classification as “metropolitan statistical areas”.
You might wonder why it matters at all, but as with many things in government, it likely comes down to money. As far as the logistics, it would essentially involve removing 144 communities and metro areas (out of 392) from the designation of metropolitan statistical areas by increasing the population criteria for communities in metro areas from 50,000 residents to 100,000 residents.
As far as our area, the Bridgeton-Vineland metropolitan statistical area has 95,259 and the Ocean City metropolitan statistical area has 97,212. Both areas would be considered “micropolitan areas” if this change goes through.
The problem with doing that is the very real likelihood that the impacted cities would get much less federal funding in key areas including block grants, economic development funds, housing, Medicare reimbursements, transportation, and environmental resources since these funds coming down from the federal government are directly tied to numbers in metropolitan statistical areas. If they remove these communities from the mix by reclassifying them as “micropolitan areas” we will lose funding.
According to coverage by Associated Press reporter Mike Schneider, a letter opposing the change was sent to the Office Management and Budget recently and the letter was signed South Dakota’s senators (John Thune and Mike Rounds), Arizona’s senators (Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly), North Dakota’s senators (John Hoeven and Kevin Cramer), Deb Fischer of Nebraska, and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming.
In the reporting done by the Associated Press on the issue, the current standards for defining metropolitan statistical areas was created in 1950 and the people pushing for the change, meaning the bean counters and number crunchers in the federal bureaucracy, make the point that the population of the country has almost tripled since 1950 and back then, 50% of the population lived in these areas whereas now that number is 86%.
I suspect that the proposal is one of those things that look good on paper but it plays out differently on the street. What I mean to say is that while 86% of the population now lives in a metropolitan statistical area, they are also the bulk of the people who need resources to prevent homelessness, hunger, illiteracy, substance abuse, and whatever else tends to unravel people’s lives and burden communities.
What the supporters of this proposal to reclassify these 144 communities, including specifically the Vineland-Bridgeton area probably fails to recognize, is that many of the most entrenched problems are not confined to the larger metro areas, but are a very real part of the challenges we must overcome to provide our residents a better standard of living. As I have often said about our communities- we are small cities with big city problems.
My concern is not just confined to the flow of federal funds. There is the trickle down concern as well, meaning that certain state resources that are formula-based would also be impacted whether intentionally or not. Part of it also involves perception because when you swap out the idea of “metro” and replace it with the idea of “micro”, the communities defined as “micro” will be overlooked.
The federal bureaucrats proposing this change might well believe that it is just for classification purposes and would have nothing to do with funding, but once you create a smaller or lesser category like “micro” within the federal ecosystem, the tendency is to then make sweeping generalizations about the people who inhabit it and their needs while comparing them to “metro”. It’s human nature.
Along those same lines, the good people of the Census Bureau are looking at changing how we determine rural versus urban. It would involve counting housing units instead of people so that any area with 385 housing units per square mile would be considered “urban” which is estimated to be the equivalent of 1,000 persons per square mile instead of the current 500 persons per square mile.
I encourage our 2 Senators and all our House members to drill down into the details and oppose any changes that will result in a reduction of funding and resources for South Jersey