On this page

Library

Animal Life

Business &
Finance

Cars &
Vehicles

Entertainment
& Arts

Food &
Cooking

Health

History,
Politics, Society

Home &
Garden

Law & Legal
Issues

Literature
& Language

Miscellaneous

Religion
& Spirituality

Science

Sports

Technology

Travel & Places

Q &
A

Municipal corporation

Oxford
Companion to the US Supreme Court:

Municipal
Corporations

Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > US Supreme
Court

Two traditional—and inconsistent—attitudes toward cities coexist in American
thought. On the one hand, cities are places to be feared. They are prime
locations for vice, crime, and alienation; they frequently advance their own
parochial interests over the welfare of the states and the nation as a whole;
they all too often allow an entrenched majority to threaten the rights of
minorities. Thus James Madison, in
The Federalist, no. 10, argued that local democracies were
“spectacles of turbulence and contention … incompatible with personal security
and rights of property.” Only by “extend[ing] the sphere” of political power to
the nation, he contended, could the danger to liberty posed by localism be
cured.

Cities, however, are also seen as a source of human vitality and
as a vehicle for the exercise of freedom. The concentration of people within
cities unleashes an unmatched amount of creative energy and innovation; city
policies serve as laboratories for social and economic experiments that benefit
the rest of the country; local governments alone are close enough to their
constituents to permit popular participation in governmental decision making. Alexis de
Tocqueville, in Democracy in America (1835), contended that “the
strength of free nations resides in the local community. Local institutions are
to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within people's
reach, they teach people how to use and enjoy it.”

The legal status of
American municipal corporations (a term describing the legal form adopted by
cities) reflects both of these inconsistent attitudes, but the negative image of
cities predominates. Apprehensions about the nature of city life, about city
parochialism, and about city invasion of minority rights have led to a host of
limitations on local governmental power. The most important of these is that
cities cannot adopt policies simply because city residents favor them. Cities
can only exercise powers that have been delegated to them by the states, and the
scope of such a delegation has traditionally been narrowly construed. Since the
late nineteenth century, a number of American cities, in an attempt to overcome
restrictive interpretations of city power, have been given general authority to
exercise local self‐government under “home rule” charters. But even the power of
home rule cities is limited. Home rule cities can usually legislate only on
matters that are local in scope, and today fewer and fewer subjects are of only
local concern. Home rule cities are also often prohibited from legislating in
specific areas, such as enacting “private” or “civil” law.

Not only must city actions be undertaken pursuant to a power delegated
by the state but any such action can be modified or reversed if the state or the
federal government decides to do so. Cities have long sought federal
constitutional protection from the exercise of this state and federal power to
reverse city policies. But in 1907 the Supreme Court decisively rejected the
attempt to impose constitutional limits on state power over cities in Hunter
v. Pittsburgh:

Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the State
created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers
of the State as may be entrusted to them. … The State, therefore, at its
pleasure may modify or withdraw all such powers, may take without compensation
such property, hold it itself, or vest it in other agencies, expand or
contract the territorial area, unite the whole or part with another
municipality, repeal the charter and destroy the corporation. … In all these
respects the State is supreme, and its legislative body, conforming its
actions to the state constitution, may do as it will, unrestrained by any
provision of the Constitution of the United States. (pp.
178–179)

This extensive state power over cities has resulted
in a wide variety of controls on city activity. The most important are
state‐imposed restrictions on the ability of cities to raise revenue. Cities can
only impose taxes that are authorized by the state, and even these taxes are
subject to state‐defined limits. Strict controls have also been placed on city
borrowing and profit‐making activities. Moreover, a host of other city policies,
ranging from attempts to combat homelessness to efforts to control pollution,
have at one time or another been preempted by contrary state decisions. Without
effective state constitutional restrictions on state legislative power—which are
rare—cities have no power to resist state policies with which they disagree or
state mandates that city money be spent for state purposes.

Cities, like
states, have been subjected to a vast array of federal controls in recent years
as well. Since the 1970s, both city and state officials have become liable to
federal criminal prosecution under an expansive interpretation of federal laws
dealing with bribery, mail fraud, and extortion. Even federal laws that are
inapplicable to states have been applied to cities. Cities, unlike states, are
subject to federal antitrust laws.
And although the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibitions on the abuse of governmental
power applies equally to cities and states, cities, unlike states, have no
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from being sued in federal court and, unlike
states, are liable for damages under Title 42, section 1983 of the U.S. Code for
constitutional violations (see Sovereign
Immunity).

Despite these pervasive limits on city power, the Supreme
Court in recent years has often extolled the value of “local control.” When
faced with an equal protection challenge to school financing systems that made
the amount of money available for education depend on district wealth, the
Court, in San Antonio Independent School District v.
Rodriguez (1973), argued that the locally financed education systems
were justified because of the importance of local control of education. “Local
control,” the Court said, “is not only vital to continued public support of the
schools, but is of overriding importance from an educational standpoint as well”
(p. 49). In refusing to permit an interdistrict remedy to desegregate Detroit's school
system in Milliken v. Bradley (1974), the Court again
stressed the importance of the autonomy of suburban school systems, contending
that “no single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local
control over the operation of schools” (p. 741). (see Segregation, De
Facto.) Similarly, the Court has refused to invalidate locally imposed exclusionary zoning ordinances
despite their impact on the ability of low and moderate income people to find
adequate housing, holding that the zoning ordinances are unconstitutional only
if they are motivated by intentional racial discrimination (Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development
Corp, 1977; see also Housing
Discrimination).

The Court's defense of local autonomy is also
frequently expressed in cases upholding cities' attempts to preserve their
character. Thus cities have been given considerable leeway to establish rules
prohibiting unrelated adults from living together in a single house. “The police
power,” the Court said in Village of Belle
Terre v. Boraas (1974), “is ample to lay out zones where family
values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make
the area a sanctuary for people” (p. 9). An equally deferential attitude has
permitted cities to use zoning laws to concentrate or disperse “adult” movie
theaters and book stores. “A city's interest in attempting to preserve the
quality of urban life,” the Court stated in City of Renton v. Playtime
Theatres (1986), “is one that must be accorded high respect” (p. 50).

There are many possible explanations for the Supreme Court's defense of
local control in the desegregation, school financing, exclusionary
zoning, and community character contexts despite its rejection of similar
arguments when cities have asserted a right of local self‐government immune from
state or federal control. One commentator has argued that the Supreme Court,
like state legislatures, has deferred to local autonomy in cases in which
suburban communities have sought to protect family values from problems
associated with the inner city but has allowed strict controls over central
cities' regulatory authority. Another commentator has suggested that
Supreme Court cases defending local autonomy as well as legal doctrines
subjecting cities to state and federal control are efforts to protect private property
rights. Deference to suburban autonomy is one way to protect the interests of
private property owners, and invalidating city regulation of private business is
another.

A third explanation of the divided attitude toward local
authority is also possible. Judges, like most of us, are ambivalent about city
power. They see much in cities that they fear and much that they admire. What is
feared and what is admired, however, seem inextricable. Perhaps the explanation
of the division within legal thought about city power, then, lies in the
division within the predominant vision of cities: cities embody both our fears
and our hopes for the future of American democracy.

See also Police Power;
Takings
Clause.

Bibliography

David J. Barron, Reclaiming Home Rule, Harvard Law
Review 116 (2003): 2255–2386.

Richard Briffault, Our Localism, Columbia Law Review
90 (1990): 1–115, 346–454.

Gerald E. Frug, City Making: Building Communities without Building
Walls (1990).

Joan Williams, The Constitutional Vulnerability of American Local
Government: The Politics of City Status in American Law, Wisconsin
Law Review (1986): 83–153

— Gerald E. Frug

English▼

English▼ Deutsch Español Français Italiano Tagalog

Search unanswered questions...

Browse: Unanswered questions
| Most-recent questions | Reference
library

Enter a question here...

Search: All sources Community Q&A
Reference topics

Browse: Unanswered questions
| New questions | New answers | Reference
library

Related
Videos:

Municipal
corporation

Top

Click to Play

Drew Carey Discusses Ways to Save Cleveland
Click to Play

The State of New York Politics

Click to Play

Privatize It: Reason Saves Cleveland With Drew
Carey
Click to Play

3 Reasons Why Obama's High-Speed Rail Will Go Nowhere
Fast

View more Law & Legal Issues
videos

West's
Encyclopedia of American Law:

Municipal
Corporation

Top

Home > Library > Law
& Legal Issues > Law
Encyclopedia

This entry contains information applicable to
United States law only.

An incorporated political subdivision of a state that is composed of the
citizens of a designated geographic area and which performs certain state
functions on a local level and possesses such powers as are conferred upon it by
the state.

A municipal corporation is a city, town, village, or borough that has
governmental powers. A municipality is a city, town, village, or, in some
states, a borough. A corporation is an entity capable of conducting business.
Cities, towns, villages, and some boroughs are called municipal corporations
because they have the power to conduct business with the private sector.

Generally, the authority to govern the affairs within a state rests with the
state legislature, the governor, and the state judicial system. However, states
give localities limited powers to govern their own areas. The origin of the
municipal corporation varies from state to state. Municipal corporations are
given the power to govern through either the state constitution or state
statutes, or through the legislative grant of a charter.

States give municipalities the power to create an official governmental body,
such as a board or council. Members of this body are elected by voters who live
within the voting boundaries of the municipality. The local body has the power
to pass ordinances, or local laws. These laws may not conflict with state or
federal laws.

Most states grant so-called home rule
powers to municipalities in the state constitution and state statutes. Home rule
is a flexible grant of power from the state to the voters of a municipality. The
first grant of home rule was given to the city of St. Louis in 1875 when the
state of Missouri created a new state constitution that gave the city the power
to create its own government.

Home rule gives municipalities the power to determine their own goals without
interference from the state legislature or state agencies. It gives
municipalities room to experiment with new approaches to government without
first seeking approval from the state. It also allows municipalities to act more
quickly on issues of local concern because they do not have to seek approval for
their actions from the state legislature. Although home rule powers are broad,
in no event may a municipality enact a law that is specifically precluded by
state law or that is contrary to state law. For example, a municipality may not
vote to decriminalize narcotics that are illegal under state law. It may,
however, strengthen existing state laws. For instance, a municipality may act to
restrict the sale of alcohol to a greater
degree than is done in other municipalities.

The alternative to home rule is Dillon's Rule, a set of principles related to
municipal power formulated by the influential jurist John Forest Dillon in 1872.
Under Dillon's Rule, municipalities exercise only the limited powers
specifically granted by the state, the powers necessary to carry out the
specifically granted powers, and the powers indispensable to the declared
purposes of the municipality. Few states rely on Dillon's Rule, and the trend
among states is to give municipalities more power in deciding local issues.

The governmental authority most commonly exercised by municipalities is the
police power. The term police power does not refer to the authority to
create police departments, although it does include that power. Police power is
the power of state and local governments to enact laws governing health, safety,
morals, and general public welfare. On the local level, such ordinances range
from the provision of local police to zoning laws to laws
on domestic partnerships. The authority of states to exercise police power can
be found in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. States, in turn, grant
police power to municipalities, and the municipalities exercise that power
within their respective borders. The grant of police power from the state to
municipalities can be found in state constitutions or state statutes.

States also commonly give their municipalities the power to enter into
contracts. This power can be exercised only by action of the local governing
body. The body must give notice of its intent to hire a private party for local
government work. For example, if a municipality seeks a contractor to construct
a building, the municipality must publish a notice of its intentions in a local
newspaper and post other notices in public places. A municipality should not
hire a private company if a member of the governing body has a financial
interest in the company.

A municipality must exercise ordinary and reasonable care
in providing safe public places and safe public services. If a municipality
fails to exercise reasonable care, it may be held liable for resulting injuries.
For example, if a person falls through a manhole and into the sewer, the city
may be liable for any injuries resulting from the fall if the manhole cover was
not secure. In this respect, a municipality may be liable for its negligence
just like an individual. The most common tort cases against municipalities are
based on personal injuries caused by defects or obstructions in public streets,
sidewalks, drains, and sewers.

Since the 1960s, cities across the United States have begun to decay because
of lack of resources. To increase municipal resources, cities have imposed a
variety of fees on private developers. Such fees include charges for building
permit approvals, plat approvals, and water or sewer connection; impact fees
that take into account future costs of a development; and special assessments
for benefits given to a developer by the city. For example, a city may impose a
transportation exaction fee on the developer of a residential subdivision to pay
for the laying and maintenance of new roads that must be built to serve the
subdivision. Developers have argued that such fees force private parties to pay
for public functions, and they have attacked the fees as being beyond the power
of the city government. In some cases their challenges have been upheld.

Municipal corporations are an important feature of the political structure of
the United States. Incorporating a municipality gives it the freedom to form a
society that is distinct from other localities in the state and around the
country. This idea of local control is the same concept that animates the
constitutional division of the country into a collection of smaller states. By
giving municipalities some autonomy, individuals are more capable of
participating in politics and gaining a measure of control over their lives than
if political activity occurred only on the federal and state levels.

See: land-use
control.

Wikipedia on
Answers.com:

Municipal
corporation

Top

Home > Library > Miscellaneous >
Wikipedia

A municipal corporation is the legal term for a local governing
body, including (but not necessarily limited to) cities, counties, towns, townships, charter
townships, villages, and boroughs.
Municipal incorporation occurs when such municipalities become self-governing entities under the laws of
the state or province in which they are located. Often, this event is marked by
the award or declaration of a municipal charter.

With the notable exception of the City
of London Corporation, the term has fallen out of favour in the United
Kingdom, but the concept remains central to local government in the United Kingdom, as well as former British
colonies such as India.

Contents

1 Municipal
charters

2 By country

2.1 Canada

2.2 Germany

2.3 India

2.4 Republic of
Ireland

2.5 South
Africa

2.6 Sweden

2.7 Philippines

2.8 United
Kingdom

2.9 United
States

3 See also

4 References

Municipal charters

A city charter or town charter (generically, municipal
charter) is a legal document
establishing a municipality
such as a city or town. The concept
developed in Europe during the middle ages.
It's considered to be a municipal version of a constitution.

Traditionally the granting of a charter gave a settlement and its inhabitants
the right to town
privileges under the feudal system. Townspeople who lived in chartered towns
were burghers, as
opposed to serfs who lived in
villages. Towns were often "free", in the sense that they were directly
protected by the king or emperor, and were not part of a feudal fief.

Today the process for granting charters is determined by the type of
government of the state in question. In monarchies, charters are still often a
royal charter
given by the Crown or the
state authorities acting on behalf of the Crown. In federations, the granting of
charters may be within the jurisdiction of the lower level of government such as
a state or province.

By country

Canada

Main article: Local
government in Canada

In Canada charters are granted by provincial authorities.

Germany

In Germany, municipal
corporations existed since antiquity and through medieval times,
until they became out of favour during the absolutism. In order to strengthen
the public spirit the city law of Prussia dated 19 November 1808 picked up this
concept. It is the basis of today's municipal law.

India

Main article: Nagar
nigam

Municipal Corporation Building in Trichy

Municipal building in Bangalore

In India a Municipal
Corporation is a local government body that administers a city of population
200,000 or more. Under the panchayati
raj system, it interacts directly with the state government, though it is
administratively part of the district it is located in. The largest Municipal
Corporations in India currently are Mumbai, followed by
Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad
and Ahmedabad.

The Municipal Corporation consists of members elected from the wards of the city. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor
are elected by the members among themselves. A Municipal Commissioner, who is from the Indian Administrative Service is appointed to head the
administrative staff of the Municipal Corporation, implement the decisions of
the Corporation and prepare its annual budget.

The Municipal Corporation is responsible for roads, public transportation,
water supply, records of births and deaths (delegated from Central Govt Birth
and Death Registration Act), sanitation that includes waste management, sewage,
drainage and flood control, public safety services like fire and ambulance
services, gardens and maintenance of buildings. The sources of income of the
Corporation are property tax, entertainment tax, octroi (now
abolished from many cities) and usage fees for utilities.

Republic of
Ireland

Main article: City status in
Ireland

In Ireland, municipal corporations existed in boroughs since medieval times.
The Corporation
of Dublin, officially styled the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor,
Aldermen, and Burgesses of the City of Dublin had existed since the 13th
century. Corporations were established under the royal charter
establishing the city or borough. The Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act 1840 abolished all but ten
of the boroughs and their corporations. The Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 created two different types
of borough, county
boroughs had essentially equal status to counties - these comprised Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford (as
well as Belfast and Derry, which are now
in Northern
Ireland). The other boroughs were non-county boroughs.

The Local
Government Act 2001 abolished the title of municipal corporation.
Corporations of county boroughs (renamed cities)
were renamed City Councils. Non county boroughs were abolished, but those towns
which were previously non-county boroughs were allowed to use the title of
Borough Council. Royal charters remain in force for ceremonial and civic
purposes only.

South Africa

The municipality of Durban was called the
Durban Corporation.[1]

Sweden

In Sweden until 1951,
cities were established by royal charter;
see City
status in Sweden.

Philippines

Main article: Cities
of the Philippines

From the beginning of American colonial rule, Philippines cities were
formally established through laws enacted by the various national legislatures
in the country. The Philippine
Commission gave the city of Manila its charter in 1901, while the city of
Baguio was established by the Philippine
Assembly which was composed by elected members instead of appointed ones.
During the Commonwealth era, the National Assembly established an additional ten cities. Since
achieving independence from the United States in 1946 the Philippine Congress has established 124 more cities (as of
September 2007), the majority of which required the holding of a plebiscite within
the proposed city's jurisdiction to ratify the city's charter.

United Kingdom

In the United
Kingdom, cities are granted that status by Royal letters
patent: see city status in the United Kingdom.

United States

Main article: Local government in the United States

In the United States,
such municipal corporations are established by charters
that are granted either directly by a state legislature by means of local
legislation, or indirectly under a general municipal corporation law, usually after the
proposed charter has passed a referendum vote
of the affected population.

See also

Unincorporated area

German town
law

References

^
[1]

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed
encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full
disclaimer)

Donate to Wikimedia

Related topics:

Common Council (legal term)

Controller (legal term)

mayoress

Related answers:

How
many municipal corporation in maharashtra? Read
answer...

Compare municipal corporation and
municipal council? Read
answer...

Does
chennai has a municipal corporation or a municipal
council? Read
answer...

Help us answer these:

Municipal corporation shimla made?

What is the Area of lucknow municipal
corporation?

How
many municipal corporation are there in
rajasthan?

Post a question - any question - to the WikiAnswers
community:

Copyrights:

Oxford Companion to the US Supreme
Court. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United
States. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University
Press. All rights reserved.
Read more

West's Encyclopedia of American Law.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale
Group, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more

Wikipedia on Answers.com. This article
is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the
Wikipedia article Municipal
corporation.  Read more

Related
answers

How is
municipality different from municipal corporation?

Which is
the first municipal corporation of india?

Head of
municipal corporation?

»
More

Answer
these

Difference
between corporation and municipal corporation?

What does a
municipal corporation have?

How do you
give municipal corporation name?

»
More

Featured guides

All
About Online Trading

How to Do
Laundry

How to Get Rid of Blackheads

How Often Should You Change Your Oil?

How To Choose A Home Warranty Company

Follow us

Facebook

Twitter

YouTube

Mentioned in

Common Council (legal term)

Controller (legal term)

mayoress

Building Line (legal term)

Fund (legal term)

mayor

Award (legal term)

Livery Stable Keepers (legal term)

Charter (legal term)

borough

Fiscal (legal term)

Credit Enhancement (business term)

Ordinance (legal term)

subsidy

»
More» More

Related topics

Police
Power

Takings
Clause

land-use
control

Site

Sitemap

ReferenceAnswers

WikiAnswers

VideoAnswers

blufr

Guides

Company

About

Jobs

Press

Legal

Terms
of Use

Privacy
Policy

IP
Issues

Disclaimer

Tools

1-Click
Answers

AnswerTips

Webmasters

Apps/Add-ons

Community

Guidelines

Reputation

Roles

Help

Updates

Email

Watchlist

RSS

Blog

International Sites English Deutsch Español Français Italiano Tagalog

Copyright © 2011 Answers Corporation