ANNEXATION AND THE MID-SIZE METROPOLIS: NEW INSIGHTS IN THE AGE OF MOBILE CAPITAL

Abstract

Metropolitan regions are led by their central cities. They want and need to grow, but the suburban sprawl and municipal fragmentation that growth produces stand in the way. Fragmentation handicaps the central city’s ability to effectively coordinate responses to regional issues. Mid-size regions are especially vulnerable to the effects of fragmentation, as they face unique economic development and sociological challenges. First, mid-size regions lack many of the assets necessary to compete globally for mobile capital. Second, social inequality plays out differently in mid-size regions, which are spatially constrained and have pervasive low-density land use patterns. Municipal boundaries reflect these divisions and determine who gets to participate in the redistribution of the community’s resources. Of the many urban policy options available for addressing these challenges, annexation is both the most potent and the most controversial. This article explores how the growth ambitions of mid-size central cities are affected by their respective state annexation regimes. The article examines annexation battles in Mississippi, Tennessee, and North Carolina to observe how different annexation regimes help or hinder midsize central cities. Ultimately the article finds that mid-size central cities need annexation regimes that help them to address social inequality while maximizing their economic competitiveness. * Assistant Professor of Law at the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at Louisiana State University; B.A., Howard University; M.P.P., Harvard Kennedy School; J.D., Georgetown University Law Center. I would like to thank Brittan Bush, Barry Edwards, Joseph Manning, Riean Norman, and Hansford Wogan for excellent research assistance. I would also like to thank the participants of the 2011 John Mercer Langston Writing Workshop, the 2011 Southeastern Association of Law Schools New Scholars Workshop, Mitch Crusto, Charlton Copeland, Ray Diamond, Ed Richards, Christopher Odinet, and Judith Wegner for extremely useful suggestions and for reading previous drafts of this article. U N I V E R S I T Y O F P I T T S B U R G H L A W R E V I E W P A G E | 5 0 6 | V O L U M E 7 3 ( 2 0 1 2 )