The Rural-Urban Divide: Who Actually Runs Whatcom County?
An early 20th-century editorial breaks down how the city of Bellingham dominated local government spending despite having only a minority of the population.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
In 1906, the total vote of the county was 5,996, divided as follows: within the corporate limits of Bellingham, 2,513; outside the corporate limits, 3,478. The percentage of the vote in Bellingham was 42%, and the percentage outside was 58%. Yet, the monthly salary drawn by county officers and deputies who reside in Bellingham is $2,950.00, while the monthly salary drawn by those residing outside is only $620.00. The percentage of money drawn by the 42% urban vote is 83% of the total salary, while the 58% rural vote receives only 17% of the total salary. Is it possible that the average of intelligence and capability outside of Bellingham is so low that we are only entitled to 17% of the salary, or is the capability of the metropolis so high that they are entitled to 83%? The country voter should look well to his candidates and ensure the country draws its proper proportion of salary.
“Is it possible that out of the 58 per cent of the voters living outside of Bellingham that the average of intelligence and capability runs so low that we are only entitled to 17 per cent of the salary?”
This 1908 critique of centralized power in Bellingham mirrors modern debates over regional governance, where rural areas of Whatcom County still grapple with the perceived imbalance of political representation and resource allocation relative to the urban core.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.