come an increasingly ineffective method
for resolving discrepancies between com-
munity and municipal boundaries. Since
1955, the primary characteristic of suc-
cessful annexations has been the small-
ness of the areas annexed.2 On the
average, less than one-quarter square
mile of land has been acquired by
municipalities with each annexation
since 1955. By contrast, municipalities
in other states have succeeded in annex-
ing considerable amounts of land under
annexation procedures which do not, as
in Maryland, permit residents and prop-
erty owners to have a controlling voice
in the process.3 In Virginia, for exam-
ple, annexation is today accomplished
under a 1904 statute which provides for
the judicial determination of proposals
calling for annexation of unincorporated
territory or for the consolidation of a
city and a smaller, municipality. The
standards to be followed by the annexa-
tion court are prescribed by law. By
referring questions of municipal expan-
sion or consolidation to an impartial
body rather than to the voters, the Vir-
ginia procedure has been cited by some
observers as a distinctively improved
process for adjusting municipal bound-
aries on a meaningful and timely basis.
Like incorporation, annexation as a
technique for resolving major urban
problems is of greater relevance in cer-
tain settings than in others. It is most
often relevant in those instances in
which a substantial urban fringe has
developed adjacent to or surrounding
a municipality which is the primary or
single source of major urban services in
2 For description of annexation proceedings
in Maryland between 1955 and 1959, see table
in J. spencer. contemporary local gov-
ernment in maryland 9 (1965).
3 j. bollens & h. schmandt, the me-
TROPOLIS I its people, politics and eco-
nomic life 414 (1965).
|
the area. Conversely, annexation offers
little or no solution to urban service
problems in situations which involve
widespread and continuing urban
growth, or in instances in which urban
services are readily available through
other governmental units or systems. In
large metropolitan areas particularly,
attempts to contain urban growth
through annexation have done little
more than bring into municipal bound-
aries only a relatively small part of the
total urban community. In such in-
stances, particularly when continuing
urban growth can be expected, other
approaches to urban service develop-
ment must be considered.
COUNTY-MUNICIPAL CONSOLIDATION
County-municipal consolidation is
the technique for geographic change
most often proposed for those situations
where urban growth has ou traced munic-
ipal boundaries but where such urban
growth is still substantially contained
within the boundaries of the next larger
unit of local government — the county.
While consolidation may involve two or
more municipalities, a municipality and
a county, or all municipalities and the
surrounding county, and while it may
range from partial to full governmental
merger, it is most often proposed as a
technique for full county-municipal
merger. The underlying purpose of this
technique is to create a single unit of
government which can provide the gov-
ernmental and service needs of an
emerging urban community. Two ex-
amples of the successful use of this
technique are the experiences of Louisi-
ana and Tennessee in recent years: the
consolidation of Baton Rouge and East
Baton Rouge Parish (county) in 1947;4
4 F. corty, rural-urban consolidation:
A merger of governments in the baton
rouge area (1964).
251
|
