New Cities, Local Officials, and Municipal Incorporation Laws: A Supply-Side Model of City Formation

REFERENCES

• Aaron, A. H. (Ed.) Note: Annexation in Minnesota today–A study of problems and procedures. Minnesota Law Review, 39(5), 553–566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ACIR (1992). Significant features of fiscal federalism: Budget process and tax systems. Washington, DC: ACIR.
   Google Scholar
• Akai, N., & Sakata, M. (2002). Fiscal decentralization contributes to economic growth: Evidence from cross-sectional data in the United States. Journal of Urban Economics, 52(1), 93–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alesina, A., Baqir, R., & Hoxby, C. (2004). Political jurisdiction in heterogeneous communities. Journal of Political Economy, 112(2), 348–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alesina, A., & Spolaore, E. (1997). On the number and size of nations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1027–1056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, W. (1922). City charter making in Minnesota. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bolton, P., & Roland, G. (1997). The breakup of nations: A political economy analysis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1057–1090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, N. (1994). The formation of American local governments: Private values in public institutions. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• California Senate (1998). LAFCO governance issues and new cities’ revenue neutrality: An interim hearing of the Senate Local Government Committee.
   Google Scholar
• Cimino, K. (2001). Finance panel OKs vote on west Norman incorporation. Bill now must pass the full house as it did the Senate. Charlotte (NC) Observer, July 4.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, S. (2000). Big plans for ‘town’ (pop. 6)–state to decide if Edleon incorporation vote will be held. Cedar Rapids (IA) Gazette, June 1.
   Google Scholar
• Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Available at http://www.calafco.org/docs/CKH/2007_CKH_Guide.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Danielson, M. N. (1976). The politics of exclusion. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fenno, R. F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Finefrock, D. (1999). New city plan shares wealth; poor communities benefit. Miami (FL) Herald, January 14.
   Google Scholar
• George, J. (2005). Talk of reforming city is building. Charlotte (NC) Observer. November 6.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, N. (2000). Proposed city vote is today – State board could incorporate Edleon. Cedar Rapids (IA) Gazette. September 14.
   Google Scholar
• Krane, D., Rigos, P. N., & Hill, M. B. Jr. (2001). Home rule in America: A fifty-state handbook. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuenzli, D. P. (1965). Municipal incorporation and annexation in Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio Legislative Service Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, E. (1960). The politics of nonpartisanship: A study of California City elections. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, P. (2001). Retail politics: Local sales taxes and fiscalization of land use. Economic Development Quarterly, 15(1), 21–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenz, D. (1990). Activists say study lends weight to idea of incorporation; Sandy Springs could build surplus. Atlanta(GA) Journal and The Atlanta Constitution, January 11.
   Google Scholar
• Mandelker, D. R. (1958). Standards for municipal incorporations on the urban fringe. Texas Law Review, 36(3), 271–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandelker, D. R. (1960). Municipal incorporation and annexation: Recent legislative trends. Ohio State Law Journal, 21(3), 285–303.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, G. J. (1981). Cities by contract: The politics of municipal incorporation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Minnesota Legislature Commission on Municipal Annexation and Consolidation (1959). Report Submitted to the 1959 Legislature of the State of Minnesota.
   Google Scholar
• Minnesota Municipal Commission (1969). Boundary change by administrative commission: The Minnesota Experience, Part I, Vol. 1. Bloomington, MN: University of Minnesota.
   Google Scholar
• Musso, J. A. (2001). The political economy of city formation in California: Limits to Tiebout sorting. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1), 139–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• North Carolina General Assembly (1958). Municipal Government Study Commission. Report November 1.
   Google Scholar
• North Carolina General Assembly (1959). Report. February 26.
   Google Scholar
• Oregon Legislative Assembly (1963). Interim Committee on local government. Metropolitan and Urban area problems in Oregon: Report submitted to the governor of Oregon and members of the fifty-second legislative assembly.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, C. B., & Arman. H. (1971). Nonpartisanship and election to city office. Social Science Quarterly, 51, 941–945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, S. (1960). California legislation governing municipal incorporation: A criticism and suggested new policies. Berkeley: University of California, Bureau of Public Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Sokolow, A. D. (1993). State rules for the county-city arena: Competition for land and taxes in California’s central valley. Publius, 23(1), 53–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strichartz, R. (1949). Legal aspects of municipal incorporation in Florida: Comment. Miami Law Quarterly, 4(1), 78–97.
   Google Scholar
• Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1992). Local boundary commissions: Status and roles in forming, adjusting and dissolving local government boundaries. May, Available at http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/acir/Reports/information/M-183.pdf#search=`Boundary%20Review%20Board%20and%20Missouri’ (Accessed June 8, 2006).
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Bureau of Census (1990). Geographic areas reference manual, chap. 9. Available at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/GARM/Ch9GARM.pdf (Accessed March 25, 2006).
   Google Scholar
• Urban Studies Center (1968). Annexation, incorporation, and consolidation in the Portland metropolitan area. Portland, OR: Portland State College.
   Google Scholar
• Walston, C. (1990). The 1990 Legislative session: Lomax sees no Sandy Springs bill this year. Atlanta (GE) Journal and The Atlanta Constitution, February 22.
   Google Scholar
• Walter, E. (2000). Edleon request rejected – Proposed town fails to win incorporation. Cedar Rapids (IA) Gazette, September 15.
   Google Scholar
• Washington Legislature (1962). Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Urban Area Government. June.
   Google Scholar
• Wisconsin Legislature (1959). Report of the Interim Urban Problems Committee Submitted to the Governor. January.
   Google Scholar
• Wisniewski, John (1998). New city plan shares wealth; poor communities benefit. The Miami Herald (FL), January 14.
   Google Scholar
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yeager, J. J. (1960). City and town boundaries – incorporation, consolidation, annexation, and severance under the Iowa statutes. Drake Law Review, 19(1), 1–32.
   Google Scholar