New Cities of Color

Abstract

Scholars often portray newly incorporated municipalities as white, wealthy suburbs. Yet this study reveals that 10 percent of new cities (forty-four cities) formed between 1990 and 2010 are black, Hispanic, Asian, and/or Native American majority cities. A careful examination of the data reveals not just racial differences but significant socioeconomic differences between new cities of color (CoCs) and majority white cities. By employing a probit model of statistical analysis, this research reveals that CoCs differ socioeconomically from majority white incorporating communities on variables such as median family income, average household size, and more.

Keywords

African American annexation cities of color Hispanic local government boundary change municipal incorporation new cities newly incorporated municipalities (NIMs)and race

Municipal incorporation (new city formation) can profoundly impact the urban geography and political landscapes of the regions where these new cities form. New cities result in new elected bodies, new tax structures, and new regulations for the affected residents. Likewise, neighboring communities and host counties must deal with more competition for limited state and federal funds, further metropolitan fragmentation, and obscured accountability in some cases.

While the impacts of new municipalities vary across the United States, the types of communities incorporating tend to be viewed as a monolith. For decades, municipal incorporation scholars have generally portrayed new cities as homogenous suburban enclaves of wealthy, white, well-educated individuals (G. J. Miller 1981; Hoch 1985; Weiher 1991; Burns 1994; Musso 2001; Low 2008), often incorporating to avoid annexation to a central city (G. J. Miller 1981; Hoch 1985; Rigos and Spindler 1991; Smith and Debbage 2011). Burns (1994) believed that motivations for municipal incorporation included racial exclusion and that “along with providing effective mechanisms for class segregation, new cities have provided effective barriers to racial integration” (p. 81).

Scholars have also asserted that new cities detrimentally impact minorities by deepening racial and fiscal disparities and by adopting more stringent zoning and land use requirements (Pulido 2000; Anderson 2008; Rice, Waldner, and Smith 2014; Waldner and Smith 2015). Yet in fact, several new cities are formed in areas where racial minorities comprise the majority of the new city population. How many of these new cities of color (CoCs) form? How, if at all, do new CoCs differ from other new cities (majority white newly incorporated municipalities [NIMs])? Scholars have paid little attention to this phenomenon of NIMs—new towns, villages, or cities—formed primarily by African American, Hispanic, and other communities of color. This study analyzes CoCs established in the United States between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2009, through an empirical analysis and seeks to build a more robust theory of municipal incorporation by exploring incorporation outcomes through the lens of majority–minority communities.

The municipal incorporation of CoCs has real-world implications. Demographers forecast that white residents of the United States will become the minority of the population by 2044, altering the political landscape of America’s cities, towns, and villages (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). As a result, more communities of color may incorporate in the future and this study may herald the beginning of a new era in municipal incorporation. Secondly, studying new CoCs can aid in understanding complex issues gripping our urban areas, such as political redistricting or excessive use of police force. Recent court cases in Texas and North Carolina have exposed the gerrymandering of political boundaries around race and place. Meanwhile, events in Ferguson, MO; New York, NY; Baltimore, MD; and Charleston, SC, have highlighted the growing uneasiness between race and place throughout the country. Exploring new CoCs provides important insight into the relationship between race and place in the urban and political fabric of the United States.

This analysis of CoCs begins with a brief explanation on municipal incorporation in the United States, followed by a literature review of municipal incorporation scholarship. Next, the analysis quantitatively analyzes socioeconomic differences between CoCs and majority white NIMs through the use of a probit model. Finally, the policy implications of the findings are explored, along with recommendations for future research.

Literature Review

In the United States, an unincorporated community is part of an unincorporated county before completing the municipal incorporation process (though some states contain no unincorporated communities). Prior to incorporation, the county typically governs and provides services to the area. After incorporation, the new city, town, or village city assumes governance responsibilities over land use planning, public safety, utilities, and more. Some cities contract with the county or hire private companies to provide services (G. J. Miller 1981). Lands not included within the municipal incorporation process remain unincorporated and county governed. Municipal incorporation requirements and regulations vary across the country.

In terms of beneficial impacts, new municipalities can enhance citizen participation and local control through local self-governance (Tiebout 1956; Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 1987; Burns 1994) and improve local services (Burns 1994; Foster 1997; Musso 2001). Moreover, the public choice school based on Tiebout’s work suggests NIMs improve economic efficiency through competition by driving down service costs (Ostrom, Tiebout, and Warren 1961; Purcell 2001).

However, local government proliferation can result in metropolitan fragmentation (Weiher 1991; Downs 1994; Orfield 1997; Rusk 2003; Ingalls and Rassel 2005)—which can in turn exacerbate racial and fiscal disparities (G. J. Miller 1981; D. Miller et al. 1995; Rusk 2003; Pulido 2006), service duplication (Marando 1979; Lowery and Lyons 1989), and sprawl (Fogelson 1967; G. J. Miller 1981; Byun and Esparza 2005). However, some public choice scholars reject the notion that new cities invariably result in metropolitan fragmentation. These scholars suggest that multiple local governments can evolve into a highly functional local public economy, resulting in strong coordination and informal governance mechanisms (Feiock 1991; Oakerson and Parks 2011).

The municipal incorporation literature suggests that new cities form for numerous reasons. Rice, Waldner, and Smith’s (2014) review of the scholarly literature found twenty-two reasons why communities attempt to incorporate ranging from annexation to grant eligibility. Communities often incorporate to avoid being annexed into another city (Stauber 1965; G. J. Miller 1981; Mumphrey, Wildgen, and Williams 1990: Rigos and Spindler 1991; Burns 1994; Smith and Debbage 2006; Smith 2011). Other studies suggest new cities form to provide public services (Stauber 1965; Teaford 1979; G. J. Miller 1981; Musso 2001), control growth (Teaford 1979; Fischel 2001), to exit county governance (Waldner and Smith 2015) or because other new cities are forming nearby (Smith and Debbage 2006, 2011; Waldner and Smith 2015). Population growth (Schmandt 1961; Stauber 1965; Burns 1994), lower taxes (G. J. Miller 1981; Burns 1994), income differences (Leon-Moreta 2015, 2016), and state incorporation and/or annexation statues (Martin and Wagner 1978; Nelson 1990; Rigos and Spindler 1991; Liner and McGregor 1996; Leon-Moreta 2015) also influence municipal incorporations.

Scholars also highlight the role of race as a potential factor in municipal incorporation (Danielson 1976; Teaford 1979; G. J. Miller 1981; Weiher 1991; Burns 1994; Alesina, Baquier, and Hoxby 2004). This literature tends to portray city formation as a process in which wealthy white communities form in order to exclude people of color and/or low-income residents, through zoning and other land use or fiscal tools (Hoch 1984; Weiher 1991; Rider 1992; Burns 1994; Teaford 1997; Pulido 2000). Burns (1994) found that the primary motivations for incorporation include racial exclusion and tax avoidance. Similarly, Tkacheva (2008) noted, “Both qualitative and quantitative accounts of boundary changes have argued that residents alter municipal borders to increase the racial homogeneity of their communities” (p. 164).

Scholars consistently found that new cities have wealthier and whiter populations than the surrounding area in which they form (Musso 2001; Smith and Debbage 2011). Strikingly, G. J. Miller (1981) found that “Of the 32 (new cities) created between 1950 and 1970, 28 contained less than 1% Black populations. Thus, the Lakewood Plan cities were essentially White political movements. Further advancing this trend was the creation of the segregated cities of Rancho Palos Verdas, La Canada-Flintridge, and La Habra Heights, all incorporated since 1970 with almost totally White populations” (p. 135). Similarly, Musso (2001) found that “the process of incorporation promoted small cities, with residential populations that were wealthier, more educated, and older and had a larger proportion of White residents than the remaining unincorporated communities” (p. 151).

The literature largely fails to recognize the new cities formed by black, Hispanic, and other communities of color. No study has examined how many new CoCs form or what motivates such incorporations. A few scholars have completed individual case studies on the incorporation of communities of color, including Wood’s (1983) work on Nicodemus, KS, and DeHoog, Lowery, and Lyons’s (1991) study of the city of Newberg, KY. Both of these case studies (Wood 1983; DeHoog, Lowery, and Lyons 1991) discuss the role of race in cityhood formation, though municipal incorporation was not the focus of the research endeavors. Municipal underbounding may also play a role in stimulating new city formation, though the relationship between underbounding and incorporation has yet to be fully explored. Municipal underbounding occurs when existing cities refuse to annex low-income communities of color due to fiscal or other considerations (Aiken 1987, 1990; Lichter et al. 2007).

Research Methods

In an effort to add to the theory of municipal incorporation and to begin to better understand new CoCs, this study seeks to determine if new CoCs are different from other new cities (majority white NIMs) socioeconomically. A regression analysis via ordinary least squares is a commonly applied statistical technique when continuous dependent variables are used. However, when the dependent Y variable is dichotomous as in this case (majority white NIMs or CoCs), the appropriate model is a probit, which constrains the estimated probabilities between 0 and 1. It also allows the effect of an independent variable to be different, depending on its particular value.

This study analyzes CoCs established in the United States between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2009, with the aid of a probit model, using the socioeconomic characteristics of NIMs. The statistical analysis ferrets out the socioeconomic differences between CoCs and majority white NIMs. The study hypothesizes that CoCs will differ along a range of socioeconomic variables compared to majority white NIMs. The expected relationship between the CoCs and the socioeconomic variables is included in Table 1 Supplement.

The study identified the NIMs included in this analysis by examining the Bureau’s Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The BAS with a 95 percent response rate (J. Miller 1988) takes place annually between decennial censuses. A review of the BAS revealed 499 NIMs incorporating between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2009, of which 64 NIMs were excluded due to disincorporation, mergers, missing boundaries, or upward boundary changes. One additional NIM did not have any population according to a review of the 2010 U.S. Census and thus was excluded from the analysis yielding a final data set of 434 NIMs.

The researchers then classified the 434 NIMs individually as either CoCs or white NIMs. As defined in this study, a CoC is a municipality (e.g., city, town, or village) where black, Hispanic, Asian, and/or Native American residents constitute over 50 percent of the population. In total, forty-four CoCs were identified after a review of the racial/ethnic composition of the 434 NIMs established during the study period. In contrast, majority white NIMs, as they are referred to here, comprise new cities in the study period with white populations of greater than 50 percent. The term “city” here as a shorthand for any municipal incorporation, defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as a new city, town, or village. Throughout the study, the term CoCs is utilized to indicate newly formed CoCs, rather than existing white cities that experience demographic change and gradually transition to a nonwhite majority (for a discussion of CoCs that evolve through demographic transition, see Camarillo 2007).

A review of the existing literature on municipal incorporation formed the basis for choosing the majority of the variables included in this analysis. The independent variables are gathered from the 2010 Decennial Census and the 2012 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014) and included total population, mean travel times, college attainment levels, median family income, median value of owner-occupied housing, and percentage of population living in poverty. Additional variables assessed included race, ethnicity, median age, percentage of the population over sixty-five years, average household size of homes that are owner occupied and degree of clustering (see Table 1 Supplement and Table 2 Supplement). The clustering variable measures the presence of additional NIMs within the same county and has been continuously highlighted as a defining characteristics of new municipal incorporations (Stauber 1965; Smith and Debbage 2006, 2011; Waldner and Smith 2015).

Findings

Between 1990 and 2010, 434 NIMs formed in the United States with a combined 2010 population of more than four million residents. CoCs constituted 44 percent, or 10.1 percent, of these new cities, with a total population in excess of 500,000 in 2010 (see Table 3 Supplement). CoCs can be found across the United States but tend to be concentrated in the Sunbelt similar to all NIMs. Most CoCs occurred in just a few states: Texas, Florida, Alaska, North Carolina, California, and Oklahoma. These six states accounted for more than 68 percent of all CoCs created during the study period.

The probit analysis allows one to judge what are the important drivers that either increase or decrease the probability that a city will be a CoC rather than a majority white city. The analysis presented here illustrates the percentage point change in the probability of becoming a CoC, after a one-unit change in each independent variable, taken at the mean of each independent variable. (In the case of dummy variables, the impact was evaluated at zero vs. one.)

The results of the statistical analysis revealed some interesting findings. Almost half of the socioeconomic variables included within the model were deemed to be statistically significantly different between the two groups (see Table 1). As hypothesized, clear differences existed between CoCs and majority white NIMs. CoCs had lower percentages of residents with college degrees, lower median family incomes, and had a larger average household size of owner-occupied units compared to majority white NIMs. Recently, Leon-Moreta (2015, 2016) highlighted the importance of income differentiation between subcounty areas as a major factor in contributing to the creation of new municipalities and the findings of this study seem to support their importance as a differentiating factor between majority white NIMs and CoCs as well. The relationship between minorities and lower socioeconomic status is well documented (Lubhy 2014; Shin 2015; American Psychological Association 2016) and as a result these findings were expected.

Table 1.

Parameter Estimates.

Parameter		Estimate	Standard Error	Z	Sig.	95% Confidence Interval
Parameter		Estimate	Standard Error	Z	Sig.	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Probit	Clustering	0.340	0.252	1.348	0.178	−0.154	0.834
	Median age	0.043	0.024	1.804	0.071	−0.004	0.090
	AvgHHsizeOwn	0.903	0.265	3.411	0.001***	0.384	1.423
	Medianfamincome1,000s	−0.026	0.010	−2.704	0.007**	−0.045	−0.007
	Medianhome$10,000s	0.050	0.013	3.917	0.000***	0.025	0.075
	65 Years and over	−0.028	0.015	−1.896	0.058	−0.057	0.001
	Poverty level	0.009	0.011	0.853	0.394	−0.012	0.030
	College attainment	−0.078	0.015	−5.340	0.000***	−0.106	−0.049
	Commuting to work	−0.031	0.016	−1.896	0.058	−0.063	0.001
	Tot pop, thousands	0.018	0.006	3.090	0.002**	0.006	0.029
	Intercept	−2.927	1.640	−1.785	0.074	−4.567	−1.288

Note: AvgHHsizeOwn = average household size; Medianfamincome = median family income; Medianhome = median home; Tot pop = total population.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001.

Surprisingly, CoCs had larger populations and higher median home values of owner-occupied units than the majority white NIMs. The larger population size of CoCs might be a sign of a longer incubation period needed by incorporating majority minority communities, or because minorities are much more likely to live in metropolitan areas that contain larger populations. Frey (2011) found that “more than half off all minority groups in large metro areas, including Blacks, now reside in the suburbs” (p. 1). These suburbs can be prime locations for municipal incorporation events.

Two related variables that provide support for this thesis include the median age of a community and the percentage of population sixty-five and older. Both of these variables were statistically significant at the 90 percent level and CoCs had a higher median age and a larger percentage of the population sixty-five and older. Previous examinations into the influence of age on NIMs found that median age was a statistically significant variable for all NIMs compared to existing municipalities, but the percentage of the population over sixty-five years in age was not (Smith and Debbage 2011). These findings may highlight the fact that many CoCs are older, established communities with larger populations and a longer history of urbanizing that may wait longer to incorporate as a result of exclusionary practices of nearby existing communities that do not wish to annex them (Aiken 1987, 1990). As a result, municipal incorporation becomes an avenue of last resort and leads to the incorporation of larger, older territories.

A second interesting result of the analysis was the higher median home value of owner-occupied units within CoCs compared with majority white NIMs. Smith and Debbage (2011) found a statistically significant difference between the median home values of all NIMs (US$148,376) created in the 1990s and a group of existing cohort municipalities (US$119,554). It was hypothesized that a difference would also exist between CoCs and majority white NIMs, but not a positive statistically significant difference as found in this study. This result might be the by-product of geography. The location of the forty-four CoCs might influence the median home values. More research is needed to determine if CoCs are disproportionately located in more expensive metropolitan housing markets.

Next the analysis investigated how the socioeconomic variables interact with population size (see Table 2). This procedure required dividing the NIMs into quantiles based on population and then reestimating the findings presented in Table 1. Note that city size had tremendous variation, from city sizes with fewer than 50 to over 200,000 residents. This brings up a potential weakness in probit, namely, that changes in probability are sensitive to the starting value initially plugged in. For this reason, the results presented in Table 2 show how the probability estimates vary at the different quartile sizes for cities, along with the average size. One can see that some of the independent variables have little change in their net impact according to city size, whereas others shift quite markedly. Household size is a good example. In large cities, the size of the household has a much larger impact. It is for this reason that Table 2 is constructed along quartiles for city size.

Table 2.

Interpreting Probit Coefficient Estimates.

	Percentage Point Change in Probability of Cities of Color for a One-unit Change in Each Variable
	City Size, in Thousands
	First Quartile	Second Quartile	Third Quartile	Fourth Quartile	Average
Variable	0.336	1.231	7.434	153.015	9.396
Clustering	0.76	0.79	1.03	12.74	1.11
Total pop, thousands	0.03	0.03	0.04	0.71	0.04
Median age	0.07	0.07	0.09	1.69	0.10
AvgHHsizeOwn	4.21	4.34	5.38	29.09	5.75
Medianfamincome1,000s	−0.04	−0.04	−0.05	−1.03	−0.05
Medianhome$10,000s	0.08	0.08	0.10	1.95	0.11
65 Years and over	−0.04	−0.04	−0.05	−1.10	−0.06
Poverty level-all people	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.36	0.02
College attainment	−0.10	−0.11	−0.14	−3.07	−0.15
Commuting to work	−0.04	−0.04	−0.06	−1.23	−0.07

Note: AvgHHsizeOwn = average household size; Medianfamincome = median family income; Medianhome = median home.

The major findings from this model include the strong influence of average household size of owner-occupied units, clustering of NIMs, and college attainment on the formation of CoCs. Specifically, for the largest municipalities, a one-person increase in average household size results in a 29.1 percent increase in the probability of creating a CoC compared to a majority white NIM. Likewise, the presence of additional NIMs near the largest municipalities had a 12.7 percent chance of increasing the probability of establishing a CoCs instead of a white majority city. Both larger household sizes and the clustering of NIMs positively influence the formation of CoCs. Finally, a 1 percent increase in college attainment for the fourth quartile cities actually reduces the probability of the new city being a CoC by 3.1 percent. A potential interpretation of this finding is that as populations become better educated, their desire to seek places that are more homogeneous dissipates (St. John and Clymer 2000).

Conclusions

New cities are not uniformly white and wealthy. This research clearly demonstrates that 10 percent of all new cities formed from 1990 to 2010 consisted of black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American cities. Thus, new city formation is not a process driven solely by white residents of economic privilege but rather is a more diverse and nuanced process than previously envisioned. This is an important finding in and of itself, since the existing literature on municipal incorporation tends to view NIMs as uniformly white and wealthy.

Black, Hispanic, Asian, and/or Native American majority new cities differ in statistically significant ways from white new cities in terms of socioeconomic markers and characteristics. The analysis determined that CoCs had larger populations, larger household sizes, lower median family incomes, larger median home values, and lower levels of college attainment compared to majority white NIMs. While many of these findings were hypothesized based upon the larger socioeconomic literature between race/ethnic groups in the United States, this study is the first to statistically highlight differences among new cities by race/ethnicity. Likewise, the larger populations and higher median home values of CoCs provided unexpected results that warrant further investigation in the future.

Additionally, the probit model exploring the influence of population size on socioeconomic variation between CoCs and majority white NIMs revealed a strong relationship between average household size of owner-occupied units, the clustering of NIMs, and college education levels on the probability of forming CoCs. According to this study, these variables are the main distinguishing characteristics of CoCs and offer a new avenue for future research. Exploring these differences among new municipalities can provide breadth and depth to the relatively understudied topic of municipal incorporation (Smith and Debbage 2006).

CoCs clearly warrant further scholarly research. Although this research sheds light on key socioeconomic traits of these CoC, more study is needed on the factors that simulate municipal incorporation in communities of color. Most new cities form due to a plethora of stimuli identified in previous studies such as annexation activity, growth control, taxes, and preservation of community character. Do these same factors influence CoCs or are different stimuli at play? What role does race play, if any, in these incorporations, and what happens after incorporation? Such research is needed to help scholars more fully understand the role race plays in municipal incorporation and other boundary change.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The online [appendices/data supplements/etc] are available at .

References

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1987. The organization of local public economies. In Rethinking local self government in a federal system, ed. Oakerson

, 1–56. Washington, DC: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.

Aiken

Charles S.

1987. Race as a factor in municipal underbounding. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:564–79.

Aiken

Charles S.

1990. A new type of black ghetto in the plantation South. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 80:223–46.

Alesina

Alberto

Baqir

Reza

Hoxby

Caroline

. 2004. Political jurisdictions in heterogeneous communities. Journal of Political Economy 112:348–96.

American Psychological Association. 2016. Ethnic and racial minorities & socioeconomic status. American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/minorities.aspx (accessed June 13, 2016).

Anderson

Michelle W.

2008. Cities inside out: Race, poverty, and exclusion at the urban fringe. UCLA Law Review 1–55.

Burns

Nancy

. 1994. The formation of American local governments: Private values in public institutions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Byun

Pillsung

Esparza

Adrian

. 2005. A revisionist model of suburbanization and sprawl: The role of political fragmentation, growth control, and spillovers. Journal of Planning Education and Research 24:252–64.

Camarillo

Albert M.

2007. Cities of color: The new racial frontier in California’s minority-majority cities. Pacific Historical Review 76:1–28.

10.

Danielson

Michael N.

1976. The politics of exclusion. New York: Columbia University Press.

11.

DeHoog

Ruth H.

Lowery

David

Lyons

William E.

. 1991. Metropolitan fragmentation and suburban ghettos: Some empirical observations on institutional racism. Journal of Urban Affairs 13:479–93.

12.

Downs

Anthony

. 1994. New visions for metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

13.

Feiock

Richard C.

1991. The effects of economic development policy on local economic growth. American Journal of Political Science 35:643–55.

14.

Fischel

William

. 2001. Homevoters, municipal corporate governance, and the benefit view of the property tax. National Tax Journal 54:157–74.

15.

Fogelson

Robert M.

1967. The fragmented metropolis: Los Angeles from 1850 to 1930. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

16.

Foster

Kathryn A.

1997. The political economy of special-purpose government. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

17.

Frey

William H.

2011. Melting pot cities and suburbs: Racial and ethnic change in metro America in the 2000s. The Brookings Institute: State of Metropolitan America. http://www.brookings.edu/∼/media/research/files/papers/2011/5/04%20census%20ethnicity%20frey/0504_census_ethnicity_frey.pdf (accessed June 13, 2016).

18.

Hoch

Charles

. 1984. City limits: Municipal boundary formation and class segregation. In Marxism and the metropolis: New perspectives in urban political economy, 2nd ed., ed. Tabb

W. K.

Sawers

, 101–19. New York: Oxford University Press.

19.

Hoch

Charles

. 1985. Municipal contracting in California: Privatizing with class. Urban Affairs Quarterly 20:303–23.

20.

Ingalls

Gerald

Rassel

Gary

. 2005. Political fragmentation, municipal incorporation and annexation in a high growth urban area: The case of Charlotte, North Carolina. The North Carolina Geographer 13:17–30.

21.

Leon-Moreta

Agustin

. 2015. Municipal incorporation in the United States. Urban Studies 52:3160–80.

22.

Leon-Moreta

Agustin

. 2016. Municipal incorporation: Socioeconomic and policy factors of influence. State and Local Government Review 47:255–70.

23.

Lichter

Daniel T.

Parisi

Domenico

Grice

Steven Michael

Taquino

Michael

. 2007. Municipal underbounding: Annexation and racial exclusion in small Southern towns. Rural Sociology 72:47–68.

24.

Liner

Gaines H.

McGregor

Rob Roy

. 1996. Institutions and the market for annexable land. Growth and Change 27:55–74.

25.

Low

Setha M.

2008. Incorporation and gated communities in the greater metro-Los Angeles region as a model of privatization of residential communities. Home Cultures 5:85–108.

26.

Lowery

David

Lyons

William E.

. 1989. The impact of jurisdictional boundaries: An individual-level test of the Tiebout model. The Journal of Politics 51:73–97.

27.

Lubhy

Tami

. 2014. 5 distrurbing stats on black-white inequality. CNN Money. http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/21/news/economy/Black-White-inequality/ (accessed June 13, 2016).

28.

Marando

Vincent L.

1979. City-county consolidations: Reform, regionalism, referenda and requiem. The Western Political Quarterly 32:409–21.

29.

Martin

Dolores T.

Wagner

Richard E.

. 1978. The institutional framework for municipal incorporation: An economic analysis of local agency formation commissions in california. Journal of Law and Economics 21:409–25.

30.

Miller

Gary J.

1981. Cities by contract: The politics of municipal incorporation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

31.

Miller

Joel

. 1988. Annexations and boundary change. Municipal year book. Washington, DC: International City Management Association.

32.

Miller

David

Miranda

Rowan

Roque

Robert

Wilf

Charles

. 1995. The fiscal organization of metropolitan areas: The Allegheny County case reconsidered. Publius 25:19–35.

33.

Mumphrey

Anthony J.

Wildgen

John K.

Williams

Louise

. 1990. Annexation and incorporation: Alternative strategies for municipal development. New Orleans, LA: University of New Orleans, Division of Urban Research and Policy Studies.

34.

Musso

Juliet A.

2001. The political economy of city formation in California: Limits to Tiebout sorting. Social Science Quarterly 82:139–53.

35.

Nelson

Michael A.

1990. Decentralization of sub-national public sector: An empirical analysis of the determinants of local government structure in metropolitan areas of the U.S. Southern Economic Journal 57:443–57.

36.

Oakerson

Ronald J.

Parks

Roger B.

. 2011. The study of local public economies: Multi-organizational, multi-level institutional analysis and development. Policy Studies Journal 39:147–67.

37.

Orfield

Myron

. 1997. Metropolitics: A regional agenda for community and stability. Washington, DC; Cambridge, MA: Brookings Institution Press; Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

38.

Ostrom

Vincent

Tiebout

Charles M.

Warren

Robert

. 1961. The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review 55:831–42.

39.

Pulido

Laura

. 2000. Rethinking environmental racism: White privilege and urban development in Southern California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90:12–40.

40.

Pulido

Laura

. 2006. Black, brown, yellow, and left: Radical activism in Los Angeles. Berkeley: University of California Press

41.

Purcell

Mark

. 2001. Metropolitan political reorganization as a politics of urban growth: The case of San Fernando Valley secession. Political Geography 20:613–33.

42.

Rice

Kathryn

Waldner

Leora

Smith

Russell M.

. 2014. Why new cities form: An examination into municipal incorporation in the United States, 1950–2010. Journal of Planning Literature 29:140–54.

43.

Rider

Mark W.

1992. The political economy of metropolitan fragmentation in an economy with tastes for association. Atlanta: Georgia State University.

44.

Rigos

Platon N.

Spindler

Chaarles J.

. 1991. Municipal incorporation and state statutes: A state-level analysis. State & Local Government Review 23:76–81.

45.

Rusk

David

. 2003. Cities without suburbs. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University Press.

46.

Schmandt

Henry J.

1961. The municipal incorporation trend, 1950-1960. Madison: Bureau of Government Research and Advisory Service, University Extension Division, University of Wisconsin.

47.

Shin

Laura

. 2015. The racial wealth gap: Why a typical White housegold has 16 times the wealth of a black one. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2015/03/26/the-racial-wealth-gap-why-a-typical-White-household-has-16-times-the-wealth-of-a-Black-one/#283849146c5b (accessed June 13, 2016).

48.

Smith

Russell M.

2011. City limits? The impact of annexation on the frequency of municipal incorporation in North Carolina. Southeastern Geographer 51:422–42.

49.

Smith

Russell M.

Debbage

Keith G.

. 2006. Where are the geographers? Newly incorporated municipalities (NIMs) in the southeast. Geographical Bulletin 48:109–21.

50.

Smith

Russell M.

Debbage

Keith G.

. 2011. Spatial distribution of newly incorporated municipalities (NIMs) and related socio-economic characteristics: A national comparison to cohort cities. Urban Geography 32:568–88.

51.

Stauber

Richard L.

1965. New cities in America; a census of municipal incorporations in the United States, 1950-1960. Lawrence: Governmental Research Center, University of Kansas.

52.

St. John

Craig

Clymer

Robert

. 2000. Racial residential segregation by level of socioeconomic status. Social Science Quarterly 81:701–715.

53.

Teaford

Jon C.

1979. City and suburb: The political fragmentation of metropolitan America, 1850-1970. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

54.

Teaford

Jon C.

1997. Post-suburbia: Government and politics in the edge cities. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

55.

Tiebout

Charles M.

1956. A pure theory of local expenditures. The Journal of Political Economy 64:416–24.

56.

Tkacheva

Olesya

. 2008. New cities, local officials, and municipal incorporation laws: A supply-side model of city formation. Journal of Urban Affairs 30:155–74.

57.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. 2010 Census. http://www.census.gov/2010census/ (accessed February 22, 2014).

58.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). http://www.census.gov/geo/partnerships/bas/bas_newannex.html (accessed August 15, 2013).

59.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. New censu bureau report analyzes U.S. population projections. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps16.html (accessed February 19, 2016).

60.

Waldner

Leora

Smith

Russell M.

. 2015. The great defection: How new city clusters form to escape county governance. Public Administration Quarterly 39:171–219.

61.

Weiher

Gregory R.

1991. The fractured metropolis: Political fragmentation and metropolitan segregation. Albany: State University of New York Press.

62.

Wood

Randall B.

1983. Integration, exclusion, or segregation? The “color line” in Kansas, 1878-1900. The Western Historical Quarterly 14:181–98.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.10 MB

0.12 MB