of the governing body of the larger gov-
ernmental community in which the
question is posed. Specifically, Article
23A of the annotated code of
maryland gives to each county gov-
erning body final authority to approve
or veto any proposal for municipal
incorporation. This provision was en-
acted in 1953, at a time of fairly rapid
incorporation of new communities and
developments. Its impact has been two-
fold: it has changed both the process of
decision-making and the pace of incor-
poration in the State. Procedurally, it
transferred responsibility for approval
or disapproval from the legislature —
specifically, from the legislative delega-
tion of the county concerned — to the
local governing body. In terms of the
actual incorporation of new communi-
ties, there have been no new incorpora-
tions in Maryland since 1953.
In general, the relevance of the incor-
poration approach to urban problems
depends today to a high degree upon
the nature and pace of community
growth in particular areas. Ordinarily,
it is more relevant when a new commu-
nity emerges in a relatively isolated or
sparsely settled area than when it comes
into being in an already heavily urban-
ized metropolitan area. Similarly, it is
generally more relevant in instances in
which basic urban services — such as
water, sewage removal, etc. — are not
otherwise readily available through ex-
isting governmental systems or in in-
stances in which incorporation would
provide a continuing, rather then tem-
porary, solution to the problem of gov-
ernmental and service needs.
The Maryland technique of referring
the question of incorporation to the
larger governmental community for
approval has been criticized as denying
residents of new communities a free
|
choice in community development; on
the other hand, it is generally supported
and approved on the basis that it recog-
nizes the impact of incorporation on the
larger governmental setting and pro-
vides a forum in which this impact can
be recognized and evaluated. This tech-
nique of referring local governmental
questions to the county for decision is
today being discussed as possibly rele-
vant to such other decisions as that of
municipal growth through annexation.
ANNEXATION
Annexation is a second traditional
method for maintaining some reason-
able continuity between local commu-
nity and governmental boundaries. It
permits the adjustment of municipal
boundaries, as necessary, to keep pace
with community growth and to extend
municipal services to new communities
as they emerge.
The most extensive annexation ex-
perience in Maryland has been that of
Baltimore City, whose existence as a
governmental unit separate and distinct
from adjacent Baltimore County was
provided for by the Constitutional Con-
vention of 1850. At that time, the City
encompassed thirteen square miles and
a population of 169,000. In 1888, with
legislative approval, the City enlarged
its area by eighteen square miles and its
population by 35,000 persons, bringing
the total to 434,000 residents. Another
annexation in 1918 increased its area by
fifty-two square miles and its population
by approximately 75,000 persons, bring-
ing the total to 734,000 residents. About
that time, reaction against the City's
substantial expansion resulted in the
express prohibition of further annexa-
tion. In this respect, as in matters of
home rule powers, geographic and pop-
ulation size, the City today more closely
resembles the counties rather than other
249
|
