Why Do New Cities Form?

  • Russell M. SmithEmail author
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)


The rationale behind incorporating a new municipality has evolved since the very first cities and continues to change. The provision of public services that were the mainstay of incorporation proceedings at the turn of the twentieth century has given way to concerns over growth, land use, and exclusionary practices. Today, annexation threats from nearby existing communities, the desire to control growth and development, racial and socio-economic prejudices and the provision of public services are but a few reasons explored through case studies in this chapter. Additionally, new municipalities are also changing how they provide the public services that they do offer by contracting with existing governments or private corporations as identified by Miller in his work which examined California incorporations. In the end, incorporation activity is often the result of a myriad of local concerns that when combined, results in an effort to incorporate a new municipality.


Clustering Growth Land use Local control Politics Race Services 


  1. Aiken CS (1987) Race as a factor in municipal underbounding. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77(4):564–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken CS (1990) A new type of black ghetto in the plantation South. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 80(2):223–246Google Scholar
  3. Alesina A, Baqir R, Hoxby C (2004) Political jurisdictions in heterogeneous communities. J Polit Econ 112(2):348–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American-Statesman Staff (2003) Growth issues fill today’s balloting—from school bonds to incorporation, voters will guide area’s future. Austin American-Statesman (TX), 1 Feb 2003, Metro/StateGoogle Scholar
  5. Beche KG (1963) Incorporation laws: one aspect of the urban problem. Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, University of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  6. Bermuda Run (2016) History. Retrieved from on 16 Aug 2016
  7. Blakely EJ, Snyder MG (1997). Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  8. Burns N (1994) The formation of American local governments: private values in public institutions. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Carruthers J (2003) Growth at the fringe: the influence of political fragmentation in United States metropolitan areas. Pap Reg Sci 82(4):475–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Centennial (2016) History. Retrieved from on 8 Aug 2016
  11. Danielson MN (1976) The politics of exclusion. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Ewegen B (1998) How to stop the annexation wars. The Denver Post (CO). 15 Nov 1998, I-04Google Scholar
  13. Facer R II (2006) Annexation activity and state law in the United States. Urban Aff Rev 41(5):697–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleischmann A (1986) The goals and strategies of local boundary changes: government organization or private gain? J Urban Aff 8(4):63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galloway TD, Landis JD (1986) How cities expand: does state law make a difference? Growth Change 17(4):25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gee RW (2000) Wimberley will revisit city status initiative—vote to incorporate failed 3 rimes, but growth worries might turn the tide. Austin American-Statesman (TX), 15 Mar 2000, B1Google Scholar
  17. Herald Staff (2003) Incorporation in N. Miami-Dade: two views. The Miami Herald (FL), 26 Jan 2003, 22NWGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill R (1974) Separate and unequal: government equality in the metropolis. Am Polit Sci Rev 68(4):1557–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hinton J (1999) Bermuda run officially becomes town, adopts $1.1 million budget mayor, council members are sworn in. Winston-Salem Journal (NC), 2 July 1999, B6Google Scholar
  20. Ingalls G, Rassel G (2005) Political fragmentation, municipal incorporation and annexation in a high growth urban area: the case of Charlotte, North Carolina. N Carol Geogr 13:17–30Google Scholar
  21. Kelly S, Harp K (2000) Battle reaches hilltop State high court eyes Centennial. The Denver Post (CO). 1 May 2000, B-01Google Scholar
  22. Kreytak S (2003) Voters approve towns, schools—volente, Webberville choose to form own governments. Austin American-Statesman (TX), 2 Feb 2003, Metro/StateGoogle Scholar
  23. Leon-Moreta A (2015) Municipal incorporation: socioeconomic and policy factors of influence. State Local Gov Rev 47(4):255–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liner GH, McGregor RR (1996) Institutions and the market for annexable land. Growth Change 27(1):55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lynch R (1996) Cityhood group persisted despite lukewarm backing. Los Angeles Times, 3 July 1996Google Scholar
  26. Martin D, Wagner R (1978) The institutional framework for municipal incorporation: an economic analysis of local agency formation commissions in California. J Law Econ 21(October):409–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKibbon G (1998) Judge holds Centennial key greenwood wrangle likely. The Denver Post (CO), 20 Oct 1998, B-01Google Scholar
  28. Messina F (1997) Many in Rancho Santa Margarita see cityhood as next logical step. Los Angeles Times, 16 Feb 1997Google Scholar
  29. Miller G (1981) Cities by contract: the politics of municipal incorporation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Musso JA (2001) The political economy of city formation in California: limits to tiebout sorting. Soc Sci Q 82(1):139–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. No Author (1999) Cityhood plan okd for Rancho Santa Margarita. Los Angeles Times, 24 June 1999Google Scholar
  32. Rancho Santa Margarita (2016) History. Retrieved from on 10 Aug 2016
  33. Rice K, Waldner L, Smith RM (2014) Why new cities form: an examination into municipal incorporation in the United States, 1950–2010. J Plan Lit 29(2):140–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rider MW (1992) The political economy of metropolitan fragmentation in an economy with tastes for association. Georgia State University, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  35. Rigos PN, Spindler CJ (1991) Municipal incorporation and state statutes: a state-level analysis. State Local Gov Rev 23(2):76–81Google Scholar
  36. Sandoval E (2004) Bill clears path for West Park unincorporated areas would form new Broward city. South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 19 June 2004, 3BGoogle Scholar
  37. Schmandt HJ (1961) The municipal incorporation trend, 1950–1960. Bureau of Government Research and Advisory Service, University Extension Division, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwartz N (2001) Communities reject hollywood; residents seek to have a voice in small cities. South Florida Sun-Sentinel (FL), 23 November 2001, 1BGoogle Scholar
  39. Smirnova O, Ingalls J (2007) The influence of state annexation laws on the growth of selected southern cities. Southeast Geogr 47(1):71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith RM (2007) Newly incorporated municipalities (NIMs) in the United States 1990–2000: socioeconomic differences between NIMs and cohort cities. Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NCGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith RM (2008) Municipal incorporation activity and the clustering of new municipalities in North Carolina: 1990–2008. N Carol Geogr 16:24-35Google Scholar
  42. Smith RM (2011). City limits? The impact of annexation on the frequency of municipal incorporation in North Carolina. Southeast Geogr 51:422–442Google Scholar
  43. Smith RM, Debbage KG (2006) Where are the geographers? Newly incorporated municipalities (NIMs) in the southeast. Geogr Bull 48:109–121Google Scholar
  44. Smith RM, Debbage KG (2011) Spatial distribution of newly incorporated municipalities (NIMs) and related socio-economic characteristics: a national comparison to cohort cities. Urban Geogr 32(4):568–588Google Scholar
  45. Smith RM, Fennell A (2012) Local government boundary change in Brunswick County, North Carolina: 1990–2010. N Carol Geogr 19:4–19Google Scholar
  46. Staff (1999) Sam the Straight answer man. Winston-Salem Journal (NC), p 2. Retrieved from on 7 Aug 2016
  47. Staff and Wire Report J (1999) Bermuda Run in Davie Considers Incorporation. Winston-Salem Journal (NC), p 1. Retrieved from on 1 Aug 2016
  48. Stauber R (1965) New cities in America; a census of municipal incorporations in the United States, 1950–1960. Governmental Research Center, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KansasGoogle Scholar
  49. Sykes L (2004) Legislators consider creating a city annexation failure may lead to birth of West Park. South Florida Sun-Sentinel (FL), 22 Mar 2004, 1BGoogle Scholar
  50. Teaford JC (1979) City and suburb: the political fragmentation of Metropolitan America, 1850–1970. The John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  51. Teaford JC (1986) The twentieth-century American city: problem, promise and reality. John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  52. Tiebout C (1956) A pure theory of local public expenditure. J Polit Econ 64:416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tkacheva O (2008) New cities, local officials, and municipal incorporation laws: a supply-side model of city formation. J Urban Aff 30(2):155–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Waldner L, Smith RM (2015) The great defection: how new city clusters form to escape county governance. Pub Adm Q 39(2):171–219Google Scholar
  55. Wallace SB (2000) State closer to getting new city Court ruling favors Centennial backers. The Denver Post (CO), 27 June 2000, A-01Google Scholar
  56. Weiher GR (1991) The fractured metropolis: political fragmentation and metropolitan segregation. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  57. West Park (2016) History of West Park. Retrieved from on 15 July 2016
  58. Wood RC (1961) 1400 governments; the political economy of the New York metropolitan region. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.History, Politics and Social JusticeWinston-Salem State UniversityWinston-SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations