Scholars typically study affluent neighbourhoods resisting annexation by poorer adjacent cities. This paper focuses on the mirror image of this problem: municipal underbounding—the unwillingness of cities to annex poor neighbouring areas. In the paper, such local governments are called reluctant cities and it is suggested that urban studies scholars need to reach a better understanding of the practice. Here, a seemingly counter-intuitive case from California is documented where adjacent cities were convinced to annex poor neighbourhoods, designated as colonias. It is suggested that there may be opportunities for local co-operation leading to annexation. The important role of federal infrastructure funding is noted and the need for deeper involvement of residents of annexed neighbourhoods in decision-making is emphasised. Although race was not an issue in this case study, it is likely to be an important concern in annexations and the literature’s call for regional approaches and institutional reforms is supported.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottC. (1997) The Portland region: where city and suburbs talk to each other—and often agree, Housing Policy Debate, 8(1), pp. 11–51.
2.
AikenC. S. (1987) Race as a factor in municipal underbounding, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(4), pp. 564–579.
3.
AikenC. S. (1990) A new type of Black ghetto in the plantation south, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 80(2), pp. 223–246.
4.
AndersonM. W. (2008) Cities inside out: race, poverty, and exclusion at the urban fringe, UCLA Law Review, 55, pp. 1095–1160.
5.
AndersonM. W. (2010) Mapped out of local democracy, Stanford Law Review, 62(4), pp. 931–1004.
6.
BoboL. D.OliverM. L.JohnsonJ. H. J.ValenzuelaA. J. (2002) Prismatic Metropolis: Inequality in Los Angeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
7.
BooherD. E.InnesJ. E. (2002) Network power in collaborative planning, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), pp. 221–236.
8.
California Farm Bureau Federation (2009) Imperial County Farm Bureau (www.cfbf./counties/?id=13; accessed 15 January 2011).
9.
Committee Concerning Community Improvement et al. vs City of Modesto (2009) Nos. 07-16715, 07-17407, D.C. No. CV-04-06121-LJO-DLB, pp. 14361–14402.
10.
County of Imperial (1996) Agricultural element, Imperial Valley general plan (www.icpds.com/?pid=831; accessed 15 January 2011).
11.
DreierP.MollenkopfJ.SwanstromT. (2005) Place Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty-first Century. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
12.
EdwardsM. M. (2008) Understanding the complexities of annexation, Journal of Planning Literature, 23(2), pp. 119–135.
13.
EdwardsM. M. (2011) Municipal annexation: does state policy matter?, Land Use Policy, 28, pp. 325–333.
14.
El Paso Herald Post (1987) El Paso’s 10,000: ‘third world’ lurks on the outskirts of Sun City, 7April.
15.
FeiockR. C. (2007) Rational choice and regional governance, Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(1), pp. 47–63.
16.
FogelsonR. M. (1993) The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850–1930. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
17.
ForesterJ. (1988) Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
18.
FultonW. (1999) Guide to California Planning. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books.
19.
GilletteC. P. (2001) Regionalization and interlocal bargains. New York University Law Review, 76, pp. 190–271.
20.
GilletteC. P. (2005) The conditions of interlocal cooperation, Journal of Law & Politics, 21, p. 365.
21.
HagmanD. G. (1976) The use of boundary lines to discriminate in the provision of services by race, University of Detroit Journal of Urban Law, 54, pp. 849–897.
22.
HealeyP. (1998) Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning, Environment and Planning A, 30(9), pp. 1531–1546.
ICCED (Imperial County Community and Economic Development) (2003) Colonias master plan. ICCED, El Centro, CA.
25.
Imperial County LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) (2009) LAFCO—about LAFCO (www.iclafco.com/about-lafco/; accessed 15 January 2011).
26.
JohnsonJ. H.ParnellA.JoynerA. M.ChristmanC. J.MarshB. (2004) Racial apartheid in a small North Carolina town, The Review of Black Political Economy, 31(4), pp. 89–107.
LeavittJ. (1976) The use of boundary lines to discriminate in the provision of housing by race, University of Detroit Journal of Urban Law, 54, pp. 899–957.
29.
LichterD. T.ParisiD.GriceS. M.TaquinoM. (2007) Municipal underbounding: annexation and racial exclusion in small southern towns, Rural Sociology, 72(1), pp. 47–68.
RubinV.ChandlerA.BernabeiE.LizardoR. (2007) Unincorporated communities in the San Joaquin Valley: new responses to poverty, inequity, and a system of unresponsive governance. Framing paper for the first convening hosted by California Rural Legal Assistance and PolicyLink, Fresno, California, 27 November.
41.
RuskD. (1995) Cities without Suburbs. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
TeafordP. J. C. (1979) City and Suburb: The Political Fragmentation of Metropolitan America, 1850–1970. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
US Census Bureau (2000) Census 2000 Summary File (SF 1) and Summary File 3 (SF 3) (www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html; accessed 19 November 2010).
50.
US Congress (1990) Colonias: a third world within our borders. Hearing before the Select Committee on Hunger, House of Representatives, in Eagle Pass, Texas, 15May. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
51.
WardP. M. (1999) Colonias and Public Policy in Texas and Mexico: Urbanization by Stealth. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
52.
WilsonS. M.HeaneyC. D.CooperJ.WilsonO. (2008) Built environment issues in unserved and underserved African-American neighborhoods in North Carolina, Environmental Justice, 1(2), pp. 63–72.
