Should communities be allowed (or encouraged) to die?

Started by briantroutman, August 18, 2016, 02:47:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

briantroutman

Another thread brought up the topic of politicians' and business leaders' drive for perpetual growth in areas of suburban and exurban sprawl. That called to mind all the seemingly futile efforts to spur growth in areas that are dying of natural causes. Should they just be allowed to die? Should we actively encourage them to die?

Let me paint a little scenario: Let's say it's 1880, and in the untouched forested hills of Anystate, US, a huge pocket of coal is discovered. Overnight, the town of Carbonville appears, and by the turn of the century, it has grown to a population of over 10,000. By WWII, the town is more than 30,000 strong and has been selected as a site for a munitions plant because of its isolation.

After the war, the plant closes and Carbonville loses a third of its population within a decade. Frequent strikes and declining coal prices prompt mining company execs to cut production in Carbonville, and with massive unemployment, Carbonville's population drops to four-digit territory. The Central RR cancels service on the Carbonville line, citing major losses. With only circuitous two-lane roads into and out of town, Anystate legislators lobby to get Carbonville included on Priority Corridor Q; they promise that freeway access will turn Carbonville around. By the time the freeway is completed in 1990, Carbonville's population has dropped below 5,000, and the town's two biggest employers are the county and the local hospital. For the past two decades, Anystate has offered millions in tax incentives to businesses willing to locate in Carbonville...few have taken the offer.

- - -

Bottom line is, there was a reason Carbonville was built in the first place: A large deposit of coal could be mined profitably. That reason no longer exists; the town's raison d'être has vanished. The isolation that was a benefit in the odd circumstance of WWII is now Carbonville's chief detraction. And so the local, state, and federal governments are spending millions trying to counter societal and economic forces beyond their control.

There are no easy answers, but what do you think should be done about Carbonville? Is there any point at which the municipal, county, or state governments decide that an unsustainable community isn't worth saving–and if so, what happens next?

I'm interested in reading thoughtful responses to this complicated issue.


Brandon

^^ That has happened to many, many communities across the country (and even across the world for that matter).  There's a reason the term "ghost town" exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_town
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ghost_towns_in_the_United_States

And looking at where I went to college, up in Michigan's Keweenaw Peninsula,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ghost_towns_in_Michigan

Many towns died there when the reason for their being, copper mining, went away.  Places like Central, Clifton, and Nonesuch.  Others, like Calumet, Atlantic Mine, and Ahmeek are mere shadows of what they once were.

In their cases, nothing really could be done.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

corco

The decision should always be made at the municipal l level, unless some financial trigger requires the county or state to bail them out. As a larger matter if policy, state and federal grant structures definitely support and favor keeping communities on life support, which nay be a bad thing.

But sure, obsolete cities should be able to disincorporate and become part of whatever county they are in (in states with conventional county government setups). In most states there is a petition mechanism for that - fire instance, if I could get 2/3 of Boise's residents to sign a petition in favor of the disincorporation of Boise right now, the Ada County commissioners would have the right to revoke its incorporation.

Max Rockatansky

#3
Look at almost all the mine towns in Nevada.  They were largely just one trick ponies with the mines and when they played out the towns usually died.  Goldfield on US 95 is probably my favorite since so much of the town is left right smack dab for everyone to see.  Now you have the cities that got big during the industrial boom like Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Pittsburg that are going through decline or had a major one when the primary industry went away or lost significant market share. With Detrot there was an arguement to deincorporate the city and incorporate several smaller units during the whole bankruptcy saga.

The Nature Boy

Quote from: corco on August 18, 2016, 03:47:29 PM
The decision should always be made at the municipal l level, unless some financial trigger requires the county or state to bail them out. As a larger matter if policy, state and federal grant structures definitely support and favor keeping communities on life support, which nay be a bad thing.

But sure, obsolete cities should be able to disincorporate and become part of whatever county they are in (in states with conventional county government setups). In most states there is a petition mechanism for that - fire instance, if I could get 2/3 of Boise's residents to sign a petition in favor of the disincorporation of Boise right now, the Ada County commissioners would have the right to revoke its incorporation.

The big issue here is that in New England, disincorporation is impossible. Unincorporated land isn't a thing in New England (outside of FAR northern Maine). A small dying town in New England is kind of stuck existing in some form.

bandit957

Not if it means disincorporating a place that still has any remaining residents (unless that's what the residents wanted). Becoming an incorporated municipality is a constitutional right, much like joining a labor union. Incorporation as a municipality is sort of like "the people's union."

Much as it is unconstitutional to deny the right to unionize or to bar unions from collecting fees for their services, I think it's also unconstitutional to "bust" a municipality when residents don't want it busted.
Might as well face it, pooing is cool

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: bandit957 on August 18, 2016, 04:27:32 PM
Not if it means disincorporating a place that still has any remaining residents (unless that's what the residents wanted). Becoming an incorporated municipality is a constitutional right, much like joining a labor union. Incorporation as a municipality is sort of like "the people's union."

Much as it is unconstitutional to deny the right to unionize or to bar unions from collecting fees for their services, I think it's also unconstitutional to "bust" a municipality when residents don't want it busted.

But it's not on the Federal level.  Many states have laws to remove an incorporation or deny an application.  The problem is that you have towns/cities that have been using incorporated status for nefarious reason.  U.S. 301 in Florida was having issues with incorporated places grabbing up land on the highway just to set up speed traps for revenue generating.

bandit957

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2016, 04:32:07 PM
But it's not on the Federal level.  Many states have laws to remove an incorporation or deny an application.  The problem is that you have towns/cities that have been using incorporated status for nefarious reason.  U.S. 301 in Florida was having issues with incorporated places grabbing up land on the highway just to set up speed traps for revenue generating.

The states can still have regulations on this.
Might as well face it, pooing is cool

briantroutman

Quote from: Brandon on August 18, 2016, 03:34:34 PM
^^ That has happened to many, many communities across the country (and even across the world for that matter).  There's a reason the term "ghost town" exists.

But my perception (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the vast majority of ghost towns "ghosted"  nearly a century ago or longer–before the era in which state and federal governments were large enough, powerful enough, and accepted it as their role to intervene and save the economy of a community.

One of the few ghost towns I can think of in modern times is Centralia, PA, and in that case, there was an active danger threatening the community (mine fire), and active intervention of the state and federal governments was required to relocate residents–with some kicking and screaming, insisting that the entire episode was a conspiracy to deprive Centralians of billions of dollars of coal.

Quote from: corco on August 18, 2016, 03:47:29 PM
The decision should always be made at the municipal l level, unless some financial trigger requires the county or state to bail them out.

I think we're dealing with two related but essentially separate issues: One is whether Carbonville remains incorporated as a town. The other is whether the taxpayers of Anystate and the US decide to keep supporting the existence of Carbonville through state and federal spending.

I understand your logic, but the problem there is that, even in the absence of a major disaster requiring a concerted bail out, many of these communities are being "bailed out"  in the forms of highway spending, subsidies to support water and power infrastructure, tax incentives to try to attract businesses, and so on.

You can easily find reports on how much each state gets back in federal spending for every dollar collected in federal taxes. I think it would be interesting to see the same on an in-state basis. I suspect that the residents of Anystate are spending a lot of money to keep Carbonville going–for no other purpose than to keep Carbonville going.

Of course the residents of Carbonville are going to vote to remain incorporated and press their representatives to fight for as many Anystate and federal dollars as they can get. But at what point (if ever) do the other residents of Anystate and the country at large decide that sending tax money to keep Anystate going isn't worth it? And if so, what do they do at that point?

corco

Quote from: bandit957 on August 18, 2016, 04:27:32 PM
Not if it means disincorporating a place that still has any remaining residents (unless that's what the residents wanted). Becoming an incorporated municipality is a constitutional right, much like joining a labor union. Incorporation as a municipality is sort of like "the people's union."

Much as it is unconstitutional to deny the right to unionize or to bar unions from collecting fees for their services, I think it's also unconstitutional to "bust" a municipality when residents don't want it busted.

That's not accurate. The Constitution makes no mention of local governments- their existence is entirely at the pleasure  of the state in which they are located, which is why different states can have very different laws about how communities are formed.

AlexandriaVA

Either via charter or articles of incorporation, most municipalities are formed at the behest of the state government.

NJRoadfan

Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 18, 2016, 04:08:06 PM
The big issue here is that in New England, disincorporation is impossible. Unincorporated land isn't a thing in New England (outside of FAR northern Maine). A small dying town in New England is kind of stuck existing in some form.

They can dissolve and merge with a neighboring municipality. Its been done before in New Jersey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahaquarry_Township,_New_Jersey

Of course NJ is a poster child of municipal government gone wild. Most of the reasons behind towns breaking off and incorporating in the late 19th/early 20th century are now a moot point due to technological changes and overall population growth.

oscar

Quote from: corco on August 18, 2016, 04:50:05 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on August 18, 2016, 04:27:32 PM
Not if it means disincorporating a place that still has any remaining residents (unless that's what the residents wanted). Becoming an incorporated municipality is a constitutional right, much like joining a labor union. Incorporation as a municipality is sort of like "the people's union."

Much as it is unconstitutional to deny the right to unionize or to bar unions from collecting fees for their services, I think it's also unconstitutional to "bust" a municipality when residents don't want it busted.

That's not accurate. The Constitution makes no mention of local governments- their existence is entirely at the pleasure  of the state in which they are located, which is why different states can have very different laws about how communities are formed.

But states have their own constitutions, some of which might limit a state government's power to force consolidations, discorporations, or other major restructurings of its local governments.

I don't know much about such provisions, but I do hear from time to time of "speed trap" localities challenging in state courts (sometimes successfully) state attempts to limit their traffic fine revenues.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Brandon

Quote from: bandit957 on August 18, 2016, 04:27:32 PM
Not if it means disincorporating a place that still has any remaining residents (unless that's what the residents wanted). Becoming an incorporated municipality is a constitutional right, much like joining a labor union. Incorporation as a municipality is sort of like "the people's union."

Much as it is unconstitutional to deny the right to unionize or to bar unions from collecting fees for their services, I think it's also unconstitutional to "bust" a municipality when residents don't want it busted.

Got three words to contradict you here: New Rome, Ohio.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Duke87

Quote from: Brandon on August 18, 2016, 07:19:55 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on August 18, 2016, 04:27:32 PM
Not if it means disincorporating a place that still has any remaining residents (unless that's what the residents wanted). Becoming an incorporated municipality is a constitutional right, much like joining a labor union. Incorporation as a municipality is sort of like "the people's union."

Much as it is unconstitutional to deny the right to unionize or to bar unions from collecting fees for their services, I think it's also unconstitutional to "bust" a municipality when residents don't want it busted.

Got three words to contradict you here: New Rome, Ohio.

It varies from state to state whether the state government has any authority to dissolve or disincorporate a municipality against its will. Ohio is one state where the state has that authority. But I know, offhand, that this is not the case in New York.


But I see the OP as less a question of municipal incorporation (or lack thereof) and more a question of physical occupancy of the town. If you have a faltering town that's a shadow of its former self, disincorporating it may save some money on redundant government functions but it doesn't really address the underlying problem of the town lacking much of an economy.

If a town is deemed to be truly beyond saving it is tempting to ponder the idea of having the (state?) government take all of the property by eminent domain and pay to relocate all of the remaining residents to other nearby towns. One real world example of this occurring that comes to mind is Centralia, PA. Of course, as the example of Centralia shows, this is difficult to actually do in practice because governments in the US don't really have the authority to make this happen effectively or efficiently without the cooperation of the affected individuals. Many residents of Centralia voluntarily accepted offers to be bought out and relocated, but several refused to leave and the state, even with court battle after court battle over the course of multiple decades, was ultimately unsuccessful at removing the last few holdouts, who remain there to this day and will likely do so until they die. And, Centralia was for quite some time physically dangerous to inhabit due to an underground mine fire. Imagine attempting something similar with a town that does not have any safety problems purely for economic reasons. It would never fly - not in the US, anyway. Other countries with weaker concepts of property rights can and have forcibly relocated everyone out of a town and abandoned it without it being a struggle.

So, given that we have strong property rights in the US (and little desire among most to change that fact), any attempt to simply remove a town would have to be a soft removal - offer property owners in the town the option of selling their property to the state, getting assistance relocating, and having all the expenses of doing so paid for. But ultimately it would have to be optional and the people who choose to stay would still need to have some basic services provided to them for as long as they do.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

bandit957

Quote from: Brandon on August 18, 2016, 07:19:55 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on August 18, 2016, 04:27:32 PM
Not if it means disincorporating a place that still has any remaining residents (unless that's what the residents wanted). Becoming an incorporated municipality is a constitutional right, much like joining a labor union. Incorporation as a municipality is sort of like "the people's union."

Much as it is unconstitutional to deny the right to unionize or to bar unions from collecting fees for their services, I think it's also unconstitutional to "bust" a municipality when residents don't want it busted.

Got three words to contradict you here: New Rome, Ohio.

Municipalities don't have the right to be corrupt or let police abuse their badge.
Might as well face it, pooing is cool

jwolfer

What about the numerous settlements abandoned in Appalachia for tva dams/lakes

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: jwolfer on August 18, 2016, 10:55:23 PM
What about the numerous settlements abandoned in Appalachia for tva dams/lakes

Or any dam or lake?  Look up the history of St Thomas, Nevada and Lake Mead because it's a fascinating story about how the town was underwater but likely will never be again. 

jwolfer

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2016, 10:59:44 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on August 18, 2016, 10:55:23 PM
What about the numerous settlements abandoned in Appalachia for tva dams/lakes

Or any dam or lake?  Look up the history of St Thomas, Nevada and Lake Mead because it's a fascinating story about how the town was underwater but likely will never be again.
https://youtu.be/RgLDdKr8fCs

A song about a 'drowned town'

Scott5114

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2016, 04:32:07 PM
The problem is that you have towns/cities that have been using incorporated status for nefarious reason.  U.S. 301 in Florida was having issues with incorporated places grabbing up land on the highway just to set up speed traps for revenue generating.

I like Oklahoma's approach to this. If more than 50% of a town's revenue comes from traffic fines, the state can revoke the town's authority to issue traffic citations. This has led to at least one town (Moffett) having to declare Chapter 9 bankruptcy. Obviously, it doesn't force disincorporation, but it can certainly do a lot to hasten it if that's where the town is headed.

Then you have cases like New Rome, Ohio where you have a situation where no government would be preferable to the municipal government they have. New Rome was notorious for traffic stops, but the city government was horrifically corrupt and nepotistic to the point it was beyond salvaging. Having a mechanism to force such a government to disband is probably in everyone's best interest.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Max Rockatansky

The city in Florida I was referencing earlier was Hampton.  Basically the city government got busted running a speed trap on an annexed part of US 301 that got them something like 200k in revenue.  Apparently the mayor was busted for selling Oxycodone around the same time.  Basically the state legislature was ready to dissolve the incorporation but Hampton removed the part of 301 they annexed and got rid of the police department.  Apparently they incorporated back in the 1920s which probably explains how a place with roughly 500 people stayed incorporated.  I know there is other places where Florida has looked at dissolving due to them just be too small in general.

bing101

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon,_California

How about this the city of Vernon,CA just outside of Los Angeles. It brags about being the smallest incorporated city in California and has a history of Corruption. I'm amazed that Vernon was not seized to become part of the LA city territory.

oscar

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 19, 2016, 07:54:24 AM
Apparently they incorporated back in the 1920s which probably explains how a place with roughly 500 people stayed incorporated.  I know there is other places where Florida has looked at dissolving due to them just be too small in general.

Canada's Manitoba province has been pretty brutal about that process (of course, the basic political and constitutional rules are different north of the border). A few years ago it retroactively applied the minimum 1000 population threshold for new municipalities, to existing municipalities (usually rural) whose populations fell below the threshold after they were established ages ago. Such municipalities were generally forced into shotgun marriages with neighboring jurisdictions, to bring them over the threshold. There was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth (especially by the politicians who would lose their offices), but to no avail. The few small-population jurisdictions that remained were generally isolated communities within vast "unorganized" (unincorporated) areas, with no neighbors to be merged with or significant nearby populations to annex.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

briantroutman

Thanks for the responses, but for the most part, you're missing the mark. I'm not talking about speed trap towns, towns which should be annexed by larger cities, or the technicalities of whether or not a state can de-incorporate a municipality. I'm asking a more sociopolitical and philosophical question as to whether state and federal governments should try to prop up a dying community though spending, tax policy, and other initiatives to spur growth. And if not, what should be the course of action?

Quote from: Duke87 on August 18, 2016, 08:28:09 PM
But I see the OP as less a question of municipal incorporation (or lack thereof) and more a question of physical occupancy of the town.

Thanks–you understood the question.

Quote from: Duke87 on August 18, 2016, 08:28:09 PM
If a town is deemed to be truly beyond saving it is tempting to ponder the idea of having the (state?) government take all of the property by eminent domain and pay to relocate all of the remaining residents to other nearby towns.

...

So, given that we have strong property rights in the US (and little desire among most to change that fact), any attempt to simply remove a town would have to be a soft removal - offer property owners in the town the option of selling their property to the state, getting assistance relocating, and having all the expenses of doing so paid for. But ultimately it would have to be optional and the people who choose to stay would still need to have some basic services provided to them for as long as they do.


I agree that forced relocation would likely be unfeasible–and may perhaps be more expensive than the cost of subsidizing Carbonville's vital services. It may be possible under eminent domain, but still, the legality is questionable. You might be more on-track with your suggestion of a "soft removal" .

Your mention of property rights brings up an interesting angle. I think there's a very deeply rooted and somewhat libertarian ideal that prevails in many of these declining communities: "I have the right to own my private property and live wherever I want" . Yet it's the very non-libertarian concept of government assistance to fund infrastructure, schools, etc. that's at issue.

To take the libertarian approach to its natural conclusion, we'd neither spend taxpayer funds to relocate residents, nor would we spend out-of-area tax dollars to prop up Carbonville's infrastructure. We'd simply spend the meager amount of revenue that's collected locally to fund the most basic services and let the town "wither on the vine" , so to speak.

Somewhere between the extremes of forced relocation on one end and willful neglect on the other, maybe there's some kind of balanced approach the state and federal governments could make with regard to the allocation of tax dollars and having a plan for growth. Maybe there'd be some kind of tiered system where some declining communities–those determined to have a critical mass of population, desirable location, existing infrastructure, etc.–would be designated as "investment communities" , where state and federal spending would be concentrated.

Other declining communities without that critical mass of positive factors would be formally designated as "declining" –not to receive less than the share of revenue generated locally or less than what is needed to cover critical services (whichever is greater), but state and federal money would not be used to enhance infrastructure for local purposes, stimulate business development, or be used on other "make work"  projects designed to artificially bring jobs to an area.

kphoger

I grew up in a dying town in northwestern Kansas.  In fact, if you were willing to come in and open a business there, you could get the land for free.  My mother basically single-handedly saved the hospital from closing its doors back in the early 1990s.  Its residents have a LOT of pride in where they live.  I grew up seeing billboards reminding everyone how much Kansas farmers and ranchers contribute to society, and the plain truth is that farmland is essential, and farmland requires farmers, and farmers require towns nearby.  I understand the need for states to encourage the continued vitality of small rural towns.

On the other hand, I believe the government ought not to be in the business of deciding where people should and should not live.  If nobody wants to keep living in a place, then why should our government intervene in that development?

I think perhaps the best solution is to ask ourselves:  Does the community have anything to offer to the county or state as a whole?  If there's something there (farmland, mineral resources, tourist activities, etc.) that the state finds prudent to preserve, then it should assist in the town's survival.  If there's not (and people simply being proud of living there shouldn't count), then maybe it shouldn't assist in the town's survival.  In no instance (I suppose there might be a few exceptions), however, do I think it should actually aid in its death.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.