Localism and Involuntary Annexation: Reconsidering Approaches to New Regionalism

54 Pages Posted: 26 Dec 2012

See all articles by Christopher J. Tyson

Christopher J. Tyson

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge - Paul M. Hebert Law Center

Date Written: March 8, 2012


"Involuntary" annexation - the ability of cities to expand their territory unilaterally by extending their boundaries - is one of the most controversial devices in land use law. It is under attack in virtually every state where it exists. Involuntary annexation is a direct threat to "localism," the belief in small, autonomous units of government as the optimum forum for expressing democratic freedom, fostering community, and organizing local government. Localism has been justifiably faulted with spurring metropolitan fragmentation and the attendant challenges it creates for regional governance. This critique is at the center of "New Regionalism," a movement of scholars and policy makers focused on promoting regional governance structures that respect the cultural draw of localism while correcting for its deficiencies. New Regionalism emphasizes bottom-up, voluntary governance structures and dismisses approaches like involuntary annexation as politically infeasible. Both types of approaches face considerable political challenges, but there are arguably more examples of well-functioning involuntary annexation regimes than there are successful models of New Regionalism. While involuntary annexation has been critical to the success of metropolitan regions in Texas and North Carolina, many regard it as a violation of the liberty and freedom that comes with property rights. Property rights are rooted in instinctive and culturally reinforced notions of personal identity and the inviolability of ownership. Localism extends this logic to municipal identity. The hostility toward involuntary annexation, therefore, can be understood as a response to the taking of a person's perceived right to express individual identity, group identity, status, and ownership through municipal identity. This notion of municipal identity as property threatens to undermine both existing involuntary annexation regimes as well as future New Regionalist proposals. While New Regionalism has well-reasoned justifications for focusing on more-voluntary, bottom-up governance structures, involuntary annexation remains a potent tool for facilitating regional governance and is worthy of defense and preservation.

Keywords: annexation, involuntary annexation, local government, localism, regionalism, new regionalism, localism, unilateral annexation, forced annexation, municipal, municipality, municipal government, metropolitan, regionalism, metropolitanization, city, suburb, governance, property rights, property

Suggested Citation

Tyson, Christopher J., Localism and Involuntary Annexation: Reconsidering Approaches to New Regionalism (March 8, 2012). Tulane Law Review, Vol. 87, p. 297, 2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2194012

Christopher J. Tyson (Contact Author)

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge - Paul M. Hebert Law Center ( email )

330 Law Center
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
United States
225.578.6967 (Phone)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics