The Economic Viability of Micropolitan America

251

Chapter 7

What Has Been Learned?

America’s micropolitan cities may be broadly categorized into three types. e dis-

tinctions begin with their geography but spread to economic and social descriptors

as well. e first type includes those cities that are suburbs of much larger cities

and regions. e second grouping represents cities distant enough from larger cities

to serve as hubs for retail, medical, educational, cultural, and other needs for the

wider region. Generally speaking, it is safe to conclude that the greater the isolation

of the micropolitan community, the greater the emphasis needed on rail lines, road

networks, regional air service, and telecommunications infrastructure.

e final category includes those cities that are so isolated from other conurba-

tions that they must not only serve the greater region but must be almost totally

self-sufficient in doing so. I refer herein to these three groupings as suburban micro-

politans, hub micropolitans, and isolated micropolitans, respectively.

Micropolitan Cities by Type

Metropolitan Micropolitan Cities in the Study

Chelsea, Massachusetts

Clinton, Iowa

Covina, California

Culver City, California

Denison, Texas

Doral, Florida

Fremont, Nebraska

Holyoke, Massachusetts

252  ◾  The Economic Viability of Micropolitan America

Kokomo, Indiana

LaGrange, Georgia

Littleton, Colorado

Lompoc, California

Maryland Heights, Missouri

Moline, Illinois

Muskogee, Oklahoma

Naples, Florida

Ottumwa, Iowa

Paramus, New Jersey

Placentia, California

Plainfield, New Jersey

Stillwater, Oklahoma

Valparaiso, Indiana

Warren, Ohio

Watertown, Wisconsin

Winter Haven, Florida

Hub Micropolitan Cities in the Study

Adrian, Michigan

Ardmore, Oklahoma

Athens, Ohio

Bangor, Maine

Baraboo, Wisconsin

Bartlesville, Oklahoma

Beckley, West Virginia

Blytheville, Arkansas

Bowling Green, Ohio

Brigham City, Utah

Brookings, South Dakota

Burlington, Vermont

Carbondale, Illinois

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania

Chillicothe, Ohio

Clovis, New Mexico

Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

Concord, New Hampshire

Cookeville, Tennessee

Danville, Virginia

Dodge City, Kansas

Douglas, Georgia

Durango, Colorado

What Has Been Learned?  ◾  253

Elmira, New York

Findlay, Ohio

Galesburg, Illinois

Helena, Montana

Hutchinson, Kansas

Jamestown, New York

Jasper, Wyoming

Kearney, Nebraska

Kerrville, Texas

Kinston, North Carolina

Kokomo, Indiana

Laramie, Wyoming

Marshall, Texas

Marshalltown, Iowa

Martinsville, Virginia

Mason City, Iowa

Menomonie, Wisconsin

Mount Pleasant, Michigan

Meridian, Mississippi

Natchitoches, Louisiana

Newberry, South Carolina

New Bern, North Carolina

Nogales, Arizona

Owatonna, Minnesota

Paducah, Kentucky

Ponca City, Oklahoma

Portsmouth, Ohio

Pottsville, Pennsylvania

Poughkeepsie, New York

Pullman, Washington

Quincy, Illinois

Rolla, Missouri

Ruston, Louisiana

Salina, Kansas

San Louis Obispo, California

Sedalia, Missouri

Selma, Alabama

Shelby, North Carolina

Shelbyville, Tennessee

Staunton-Waynesboro, Virginia

Steven’s Point, Wisconsin

Tifton, Georgia

Tupelo, Mississippi

254  ◾  The Economic Viability of Micropolitan America

Twin Falls, Idaho

Uvalde, Texas

Vicksburg, Mississippi

Wilson, North Carolina

Winona, Minnesota

Wooster, Ohio

Yankton, South Dakota

Zanesville, Ohio

Isolated Micropolitan Cities in the Study

Aberdeen, South Dakota

Bangor, Maine

Blackfoot, Idaho

Bozeman, Montana

Elko, Nevada

Eureka, California

Hays, Kansas

Hobbs, New Mexico

Lufkin, Texas

Marquette, Michigan

Mason City, Iowa

Minot, North Dakota

Murray, Kentucky

Muskegon, Michigan

Picayune, Mississippi

Plattsburgh, New York

Quincy, Illinois

Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina

Sierra Vista, Arizona

Texarkana, Texas

Twin Falls, Idaho

Walla Walla, Washington

Economies in each of these types of micropolitan communities can be success-

ful (or not) if the basis for local tax revenue generation—and thus, the provision of

public services—is consistent with the type of community and the state in which

it is located. is is difficult to accomplish for state legislators in states that may

have micropolitan cities of more than one type, therefore with more than one type

of economic or financial need. More important, many of the mayors of micropoli-

tan communities who were interviewed indicated that state policy-making was not

overly concerned with the needs of smaller communities or those that produced

less of the types of tax revenue from which the states themselves provide services.