Municipal takeovers proceed by a state declaring that a municipality is in fiscal crisis and placing it in receivership, handing over most local processes to a state-appointed manager. This policy of aggressive state intervention calls into question two principles of local autonomy enshrined in home rule: that allowing local matters to be handled by local authority removes the need for state special legislation and that giving local governments functional autonomy allows them to solve problems without state intervention. This article presents case studies of New Jersey and Michigan to examine differences in home rule protection as well as approaches to municipal takeover.
BermanDavid R.1995. Takeovers of local governments: An overview and evaluation of state policies. Publius25:55–70.
2.
BurgMike. 2006. A rising time lifts all boats: The MRERA approach to saving Camden’s schools by saving Camden itself. Rutgers Journal of Law and Urban Policy3:416–39.
3.
CahillAnthony G.JamesJoseph A.. 1992. Responding to municipal fiscal distress: An emerging issue for state governments in 1990s. Public Administration Review52:88–94.
Citizen’s Research Council of Michigan. 2000. Avoiding local government financial crisis: The role of state oversight. Citizen’s Research Council, Report No. 329. Lansing, MI: Citizens Research Council of Michigan. http://www.crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/2000s/2000/rpt329.pdf(accessed April 1, 2016).
6.
FinoSusan. 1996. Michigan State constitution: A reference guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
7.
FrugGerald. 1999. City making: Building cities without building walls. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
GilletteHoward. 2005. Camden after the Fall: Decline and Renewal in a Post-industrial City. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
KlohaPhillipWeissertCarol S.KleineRobert. 2005. Someone to watch over me: State monitoring of local fiscal conditions. American Review of Public Administration35:236–55.
13.
KossisLyle D.2012. Examining the conflict between municipal receivership and local autonomy. Virginia Law Review98:1109–48.
14.
DaleKrane,RigosPlaton N.HillMelvin B.Jr., eds. 2001. Home rule in America: A fifty-state handbook. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
15.
KromerJohn. 2010. Fixing broken cities: The implementation of Urban development strategies. New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
LakeRobertNewmanKatheAshtonPhilipNisaRichardWilsonBradley. 2007. Civic engagement in Camden, New Jersey: A Baseline Portrait. New York: MDRC.
17.
LibonatiMichael E.2006. Intergovernmental relations in state constitutional law: A historical overview. In State Constitutional Law: Cases and Materials, 4th ed., ed. byWilliamsR. F., 817–25. Newark, NJ: Lexis Nexis.
SpiottoJames. 2012. Municipalities in distress? How states and investors deal with local government financial emergencies. Chicago: Chapman & Cutler LLP.
24.
VanlandinghamKenneth E.1968. Municipal home rule in the United States. William and Mary Law Review10:269–314.
25.
VassalloAnne Marie. 2001. Solving Camden’s crisis: Makeover or takeover?Rutgers Law Journal33:185–225.
26.
WeikartLynne A.2013. Monitoring the Fiscal Health of America’s Cities. In Handbook of Local Government Fiscal Health, ed. by LevineH.JusticeJ. B.ScorsoneE. A., 387–404. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
27.
WilliamsRobert F.1997. The New Jersey State constitution: A reference guide. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
