N O GREATER domestic problem confronts the American people than that of developing a rational, workable pattern of metropolitan government. The people of California have had to face this problem in a particularly baffling and relentless form since the end of World War II. For this reason they have been moved to revise their process of municipal incorporation. Incorporation requirements, little changed since 1883, made the formation of municipalities relatively easy. Existing California legislation, before 1963, formally delegated formation decisions to local bodies and informally facilitated competition among them. By the 1950's, many local proponents could reinforce their particular interests by means of a separate city.1 Many different kinds and combinations of motives, praiseworthy and otherwise, are responsible for the rash of incorporations in recent years. New incorporation efforts engender bitterness among contestants for several reasons. One key consideration, which promoters of a new city are singularly apt to slight, is the impact of their action upon the affairs of neighboring cities, especially if they lie within the confines of the same metropolitan area. This is the age-old problem of reconciling the rights of a community desiring to gain municipal status with the interests of older communities which have already attained this status. In this analysis, citizens of communities aspiring to incorporations will be termed localists; those living in