Theories of urban power have explored limitations on municipal governance by power elites, by global economic forces, and by economic competition. Less attention has been given to the impact of state government. This article explores the state role in recent secession conflicts in Los Angeles (San Fernando Valley) and New York City (Staten Island). Secession proponents expanded the scope of conflict to their state governments. Although both cities eventually survived secession battles, both were forced to accede to significant reforms. Though state interference with home rule is always a possibility because of the formidable role of the state in local government, it is not inevitable. The capacity of local political actors to form alliances at the state level and political incentives for state actors to get involved are crucial. Older debates about state limitations on urban home rule have much to offer in discussions of the twenty-first-century city.
Abu-Lughod, J.1999. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles: America’s global cities. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
2.
Baker, B.1960. Municipal autonomy: its relationship to metropolitan government. Western Political Quarterly13 (1): 83-98.
3.
Bickhart, J.1998. Taking it to the streets: The debate over neighborhood governance in Los Angeles. Center for Government & Public Policy Analysis. Occasional Paper No. 002 (August).
4.
Boudreau, J. A., and R. Keil. 2001. Seceding from responsibility? Secession movements in Los Angeles. Urban Studies38(Sept.): 1701-1732.
5.
Briffault, R.1992. Voting rights, home rule, and metropolitan governance: The secession of Staten Island as a case study in the dilemmas of local self-determination. Columbia Law Review92:775-850.
6.
Campanile, C., and C. Schneider. 1996. Secession foes agree: It’s time for action. Staten Island Advance, November 24, p. A1.
7.
Clark, G.1984. A theory of local autonomy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers74(2): 195-208.
8.
Crouch, W., and B. Dinerman. 1963. Southern California metropolis. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press.
9.
Dahl, R.1961. Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
10.
Davis, M.1990. City of quartz: Excavating the future in Los Angeles. New York: Vintage Books.
11.
Finegold, K.1995. Traditional reform, municipal populism, and progressivism: Challenges to machine politics in early-twentieth-century New York City. Urban Affairs Review31 (September): 20-42.
12.
Finnegan, M.1995. Senate votes to let S.I. go. New York Daily News, April 13, p. 4.
13.
Fishman, R.1987. Bourgeois utopias: The rise and fall of suburbia. New York: Basic Books.
14.
Gottdiener, M.1985. The social production of urban space. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.
15.
Hogen-Esch. T.2001. Urban secession and the politics of growth: The case of Los Angeles. Urban Affairs Review36(6) (July): 783-809.
16.
Hogen-Esch. T. 2002. Recapturing suburbia: Urban secession and the politics of growth in Los Angeles, Boston, and Seattle. PhD diss., Department of Political Science, University of Southern California.
17.
Hogen-Esch. T.2004. Elite and electoral coalitions: Lessons from the secession campaign in Los Angeles. Journal of California Politics and Policy8(1): 18-43.
18.
Hunter, F.1953. Community power structure: a study of decision-makers. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
19.
Keil, R.2000. Governance restructuring in Los Angeles and Toronto: Amalgamation or secession?International Journal of Urban and Regional Research24:758-780.
20.
Keil, R.2001. Consolidation and secession in Los Angeles: The dialectics of urban governance reform at the end of the twentieth century. European Journal of American Culture20(1): 22-35.
21.
Kroessler, J.2001. The race for Staten Island borough president. Gotham Gazette, May 10.
22.
Kurtz, H.A low profile borough’s high-stakes case for secession. Washington Post, Feb. 9, p. A3.
23.
Lo, C.1990. Small property versus big government. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press.
24.
Logan, J., and H. Molotch. 1987. Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press.
25.
Logan, J., and T. Swanstrom, eds. 1990. Beyond the city limits: Urban policy and economic restructuring in comparative perspective. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.
26.
Manatt, A.1996. City detachments and incorporations in the City of Los Angeles. Sacramento, CA: California Senate Local Government Committee.
27.
Mauro, F. J.1989. Voting rights and the board of estimate: The emergence of an issue. In Restructuring the New York City government: The reemergence of municipal reforms, edited by F. J. Mauro and G. Benjamin, 62-68. New York: Academy of Political Science.
28.
McHenry, D. 2001. The state’s role in urban secessions: The impact of procedures on the success of urban movements. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
29.
McHenry, D. 2002. The state’s role in urban secessions. Paper presented at the conference, “Reform-Los Angeles Style: the Theory and Practice of Urban Governance at Century’s Turn,” sponsored by the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation, Los Angeles.
30.
Mollenkopf, J.1994. A phoenix in the ashes: The rise and fall of the Koch coalition in New York. (Paperback edition including a chapter on the 1993 mayoral election). Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
31.
Molotch, H.1976. The city as a growth machine. American Journal of Sociology82:309-322.
32.
Niendorf, E.1993. The sweet smell of secession. Governing Magazine, October, p. 4.
33.
Peterson, P.1981. City limits. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
34.
Purcell, M.1997. Ruling Los Angeles: Neighborhood movements, urban regimes, and the production of urban space in Southern California. Urban Geography18:684-704.
35.
Purcell, M.2001. Metropolitan political reorganization and the political economy of urban growth: The case of San Fernando Valley secession. Political Geography20(5): 101-121.
36.
Rooney, K., G. Hart, and D. Jaffe. 1983. Remedies of a proud outcast: The legal probability and implications of restructuring the government and boundaries of the City of New York: A staff report to the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Albany: State of New York Senate.
Sassen, S.1991. The global city. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
39.
Schattschneider, E. E.1975. The semisovereign people. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
40.
Senate Finance Committee. 1990. Study of the feasibility of an independent Staten Island. NY: State of New York.
41.
Sonenshein, R. J.1993. Politics in black and white: Race and power in Los Angeles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
42.
Sonenshein, R. J.2004. The city at stake: Secession, reform, and the battle for Los Angeles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
43.
State of New York Charter Commission for Staten Island. 1993. Report to the Governor and the Legislature. John J. Marchi, Chairman, February.
44.
Stone, C.1989. Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
45.
Task Force on Staten Island Secession. 1993. Staten Island secession: The impact on city workers. NY: City of New York.
46.
Teaford, J.1997. Post-Suburbia: Government and politics in the edge cities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
47.
Tiebout, C.1956. A pure theory of local public expenditure. Journal of Political Economy64: 416-424.
48.
Viteritti, J. P.1989. The tradition of municipal reform: Charter revision in historical context. In Restructuring the New York City government: The reemergence of municipal reform, edited by F. J. Mauro and G. Benjamin, 1-68. New York: Academy of Political Science.
49.
Viteritti, J. P.1995. Municipal home rule and the conditions of justifiable secession. Fordham Urban Law Journal23:1-68.
50.
Weiher, G. R.1991. The fractured metropolis: Political fragmentation and metropolitan segregation. Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press.
