Talk:Local government in the United States

Terminology

 * The term "local government" is often not used when describing the governments of major cities. Such establishments are said to maintain municipal governments.

I removed this text because I find "local government" to be used quite frequently to describe big-city governments. -- Beland 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Extensive revision of article
I've taken the plunge and just about completely rewritten the article. I don't claim that it's now perfect, but it's hopefully a huge improvement. It's certainly a lot more cohesive in my view.

I've excised a lot of stuff, particularly the various examples of local government from different states. I don't think that it makes sense to detail all fifty-one jurisdictions, which is where this article seemed to be headed; just a few exemplars are needed in my view. There are (or should be) separate articles for each of the states, which is where most of the detail belongs.

PS: I think I was saving my changes at the same time as someone else made some alterations. Apologies to the other person, but after all that writing I was too tired out to carefully review things further (and it's very hot and stuffy where I am at the moment!).

Silverhelm 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Your rewrite is a huge improvement over what was here before. Doctor Whom 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Grand Divisions of Tennessee
Do the Grand Divisions of Tennessee operate as local governments? If so, we should say so and describe their functions, with a source. If not, what is the point of even mentioning them in this article? Thanks. Doctor Whom (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

State section redux
The section on individual states needs to be pared down. First, it should not be a trivia section; most states' systems of local government do not stand out that much. Second, long, detailed discussions of particular states should be broken out into new articles, with references added. I have tagged the article accordingly. Doctor Whom (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New England towns
Daniel Danny John was here Doctor Whom: what reliable source are you referring to?

Anyhow: see the article on New England towns for more information. "Towns" and "cities" in New England are both incorporated municipalities, operating as governments on the same level of structure (but according to different internal models). In Massachusetts, which is what I'm most familiar with, several municipalities with a city form of government refer to themselves officially as "towns"; the "city" form of goverment didn't even exist until the 1820s, so even Boston was legally a "town" until then—so the "the historical circumstances of their formation", whatever they are, are the same for cities as for towns. But in any case, this article is about local government, not Census Bureau classification, and from a governmental perspective, New England towns and cities are both municipal governmental units of the same type. (Alternatively, they could both be listed under "township governments", since cities as well as towns are "areas into which a county is divided".) AJD (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reliable source to which I refer is the Census of Governments source cited in the article. You may not agree with everything that it says, and no one is saying that it's Divinely inspired and inerrant. Nonetheless, as far as verifiability is concerned, I still say that it outranks one editor's unsupported say-so. Also, I consider it relevant, since it is, after all, from the Census of Governments.
 * If you maintain that the article should treat New England towns differently from the Census of Governments classification, feel free to explain why, citing sources and avoiding original research. Also, keep in mind that there are states outside of New England that treat some or all of their townships as incorporated municipalities operating on the same level as cities, so you should explain (again, citing sources and avoiding original research) how your reasoning applies both to the New England states and to those other states. Thanks. Doctor Whom (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Census of Governments is our source, then perhaps this article should not distinguish "municipal" from "township" governments at all. The Census of Governments distinguishes between them and classifies them separately, but explicitly not in a principled way. In Appendix A of the 2002 Census of Governments, where terminology is defined, "municipal governments" and "township governments" are defined in the exact same way: "Organized local governments authorized in state constitutions and statutes and established to provide general government for a defined area". The only explicit difference between them is in nomenclature: whether a local government is designated a "city" or a "township" (or any of several other terms) by its state—but I think such an arbitrary bifurcation by terminology shouldn't dictate how we classify local governments here. If the Census of Governments, our principal source, can't be bothered to come up with a meaningful difference between the two categories it uses, perhaps we shouldn't regard those two categories as separate at all.
 * The Census of Governments offers a handwaving explanation of its reason for using two categories: "Municipal and township governments are distinguished primarily by the historical circumstances surrounding their incorporation." At this point I'll shift back to talking about Massachusetts specifically because that's what I know best, and I don't know to what extent these facts apply to other states. In Massachusetts, every city was originally incorporated as a town, so there are no grounds for distinguishing between city and town governments in Massachusetts based on "historical circumstances surrounding their incorporation". The general laws of Massachusetts designate towns explicitly as "municipal governments", and it seems to me that if we're going to distinguish between "municipal" and "township" government we should regard Massachusetts state laws as a more reliable source than the Census of Governments. But I'm leaning more and more towards not having the two separate categories in this article at all, and maybe just an annotation saying "the U.S. Census Bureau divides these into 'municipal' and 'township' governments based on various terminological, demographic, and historical criteria'. AJD (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a lot more sympathetic now that you're citing sources rather than just making assertions. In your annotation, perhaps you can add that while some states (like MA, with the sources that you cite) do not strictly observe the distinction between townships and other forms of general-purpose local government below the county level, others do. Doctor Whom (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that Massachusetts "does not strictly observe the distinction between townships and other forms of general-purpose local government" is strangely POV. More accurate to say to say that some states (like MA) have only one type of general-purpose local government, whereas some states have two or more (say, townships and incorporated cities). Anyhow, I'm at a conference now; when I'm home and have time I'll return to this article to fix up that section. AJD (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't POV, let alone "strangely POV." It's intended to ensure that the various sections of the article make sense within the context of the whole article and thus to overcome what has traditionally been one of the deficiencies of this article. Consider the example of Virginia, which departs from the Census Bureau's paradigm at least as much as Massachusetts does and more so than most states do. No one is suggesting that we rewrite the article to suit Virginia; instead, we have a thumbnail description relating Virginia's system of local government to the standard model, with a link to Political subdivisions of Virginia to give a fuller description of Virginia's system of local government on its own terms. Doctor Whom (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thing is, I think you're overstating the degree to which Massachusetts is atypical. Lots of states have only one type of subcounty incorporated entity: California, Georgia, Texas, and many other states all have only cities as sub-county entities, and no civil townships or other levels of incorporation. But you wouldn't say that those states "do not strictly observe the distinction between townships and" cities; you'd just that that they don't have townships. Massachusetts is like California, Georgia, and Texas in this respect rather than like, say, Michigan: there are no civil townships, and there's only one level of subcounty governmental entity. It's just that what in California, Georgia, and Texas are designated "cities" are in Massachusetts sometimes "cities" and sometimes "towns", depending on their internal legislative and executive structure. But it's not the case that Massachusetts "does not strictly observe the distinction between townships and" other this; there just aren't any townships. AJD (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
It states: "although the took things outvaries [sic] from state to state, typical examples include the city, town, borough, and village." I'm not sure what it's supposed to say. Maybe: "although the local government varies from state to state..."? Melofshanoah (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)MelofshanoahMelofshanoah (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
As county governments are already fully discussed in the Local government in the United States article, the County government in the United States article is redundant. Strongly suggest merging the county government article with Local government in the United States. 71.139.153.191 (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Wouldn't County (United States) be a better merge target? I agree that the article isn't needed and should be merged somewhere. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That might be even better. 71.139.153.191 (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support merger to County (United States). IMO, the article topic is worthy of a separate article, but the new article County government in the United States is (1) redundant with existing articles in both its scope and its specific content and (2) essentially devoid of references (indeed, it could be characterized as original research). The county article appears to be a more appropriate redirection target than the Local government article, as county government is more of a focus of the county article. --Orlady (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support merge to County (United States) per Orlady. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is significant content specific to county government to warrant a separate article. County government is inherently significant as a level of government to warrant its own article. Furthermore, this article was created out of a need to deal with issues arising from the category of the same name. There is no way all the content that is worthy of coverage can fit into the local government article, and it is still a matter of debate as to whether or not county government is local government at all. Greg Bard (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support merge to the county (US) article. Or perhaps we could merge some content to it and some content to the local government article?  This is closely connected (too much so) to both of them; the title and some of the contents are more suitable for the county article, but tons of the contents are more suitable for the local government article.  Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since County government in the United States consists of content already in one or both of the other articles plus unreferenced original research, there isn't all that much that's appropriate to be merged. Possibly the main issue here is where the title should redirect. --Orlady (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That occurred to me as well. I'd support a redirect to County (United States).  In fact, I'm going to start the BRD and redirect it now, and we can discuss it over there, maybe? &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and redirected it and started a discussion at Talk:County_government_in_the_United_States. If there's anything worth merging we can get it from the history, I think. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * oppose County government is an extension of state government, not to be confused with local municipalities' governments. Merging them only causes increased confusion and reduces wiki's value as a reference.Redddbaron (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)PS If you feel you have to merge for some reason, then the only reasonable place to merge county government is into state government, since structurally, county government is state government in every state I know about. Unless someone can reference me a state where counties are not an arm of the state government? However, I see no reason for merging at all.Redddbaron (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: Are there any references that unambiguously show that counties in fact function as an extension of state government? In every state I'm familiar with, counties are fully autonomous authorities within the bounds set out by the state. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure! Here is a good online one that simply states it unambiguously. http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/Overview.aspx but you can also find the three main models in text books. At least you could 35+ years ago when I went to school. What they teach these kids now-a-days I have no idea. http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/HistoryofCountyGovernmentPartI.aspx Redddbaron (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see anything that unambiguously states that county governments are in today's world arms of state government. These references discuss the origins of counties, but then go on to describe how the function of counties has greatly expanded. So no, I'm not convinced. Once again, in all the several states in which I've lived, counties operate autonomously within the bounds set out by the state. The state only extremely rarely directly intervenes in the operations of a specific county (such as when there is a fiscal crisis or some sort of malfeasance). This is for all practical purposes directly analogous to how municipalities operate. Indeed, if you follow Gregbard's line of reasoning, then townships are also extensions of state government. older ≠ wiser 13:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this says "The longest-lasting, and potentially most profound, change in county governments was home rule. In general, this new concept simply meant that state legislatures would give their counties grants of broad, general powers, under which the counties could actually function as units of local government." I think the sources you provide more clearly support counties being units of local government in today's world, regardless of their origins. older ≠ wiser 14:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Subsequently, early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." ..... "These regional variations in county government structure and importance were repeated as the nation expanded westward in the century after the Revolution. Virginia’s strong counties became the model system for the southern colonies, while Pennsylvania’s system of at-large election to strong county governments was replicated throughout most of the western United States.  New England maintained (and maintains to this day) its greater vesting of authority in cities and towns." How unambiguous do you need? Redddbaron (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC) The concept started as county governments being "an arm of the State" and as the United States expanded the new states copied the model. I really haven't studied GregBards rational or his arguments. So I'll let him argue his own case. All I noticed was that he stated that county governments are an extension of State Government, and that is true. Whether your township statement is true or not, I don't know. Do you have any reference that unambiguously states that townships are an extension or an "arm of the state"? There are a lot of townships in the USA. Do you even have a reference that states as a general rule they are modeled in a fashion that makes most of them extensions of State Government?Redddbaron (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the quotes you selected are about the origin of county government. The issue at hand is how they currently operate, and from what I see at the pages there, county government has evolved far beyond the original forms and currently are a form of local government. No, I don't think townships are an extension of or an arm of the state in the same way that I don't think counties are. The origin of townships parallel that of counties. They were originally administrative subdivisions of a county. If we go by the origin of counties being administrative subdivisions of the state, the townships therefore are merely a third-level arm of the state government. However, in practice, just as counties have evolved beyond the original form, so have townships. Both are in today's world forms of local government. older ≠ wiser 14:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Evolved is an interesting choice of words. hmmmm How to explain it...... OK try this. County governments are the local branches of state governments. Each state has its own right to decide how much administrating jurisdiction and power it delegates to its counties. But there is a clear distinction structurally between federal, state, and municipal governments. EXCEPT where municipal governments have been merged into county governments ie Now under state jurisdiction. You'll not see county governments "merging" into state governments. That's because county governments ARE branches (or arms or extensions) of state government. When that happens between county and state, you see instead the statement that the county government was eliminated. (ie they closed down that branch) I think the issue you are missing has to do with an equivocation of the word "local". A "local" branch, even a powerful branch, of the state government is still part of the state government structure. Municipalities are also "local" but in a different sense. They are not part of the state government structure. To make an analogy comparing it to business models. You may have a "local" McDonalds, but it is just a part of the larger McDonalds corporation, you may also have a "local" mom & pop burger joint that actually is locally owned and run.(with the exception being if they get bought out by the bigger chain) Counties are that "local" branch of the larger entity, while municipalities are generally locally ran. (with a few exceptions where they got "bought out" by the state ie. merged with the county)Redddbaron (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's all fine and good from a theoretical and historical perspective. Practically speaking, and the way I read it, NACO agrees with this, counties currently function as units of local government, regardless of how they may have originated. As for your analogy, counties (at least in the states I'm familiar with, are for all practical matters treated on much the same basis as municipalities with regards to state oversight and governance. That is, the state authorizes the counties to perform certain functions and requires them to perform certain other functions, and beyond that it is up to the counties as to how that is done. The state does not generally have any role in the day-to-day operations of counties and there is no formal hierarchy by which counties are administered by the state. older ≠ wiser 15:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redddbaron, your own sources on my reading contradict your point. Obviously they describe how early state constitutions conceptualized county government in order to contrast it with how counties function now, which is as local governments.  What part of Changes in structure, greater autonomy from the states, rising revenues, and stronger political accountability ushered in a new era for county government. says to you that counties are branches of state government?  As for the fact that states mandate certain responsibilities for counties, so what?  States mandate certain responsibilities for cities and towns as well, how do you then claim that municipal governments aren't agencies of the state?  The fact is that none of them are.  Note that the federal government also mandates certain responsibilities to the states, which certainly doesn't make states agencies of the federal government.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sighs... This will be my last post because I can already see the wall of willful ignorance that caused Greg Bard to go off his rocker. That same feeling is starting to build up in me too. So before I get banned and censured or whatever you guys do here at Wiki, I will simply bow out and let you guys keep thinking the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It is not worth the aggravation to me to continue this any more. I wish you all well. I mean that sincerely. I will go back to editing agricultural and ecological wiki pages and leave the political pages to people more suited to a political mentality. Taking this off my watch list so I am unlikely to answer. If you wish to message me use my talk page. Cheers. PS I may not be discussing it any further, but my vote still stands, for what it's worth. Redddbaron (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Links
>> Detroit Bankruptcy Prods Cities to Target Pensions: Muni Credit(Lihaas (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).

dual sovereignty and multiple government definitions
The US, being a dual sovereign system, each state gets to define what its local governments are. The US Census, as a unit of the sovereign federal government gets to put out its own definition. The 51 definitions do not agree which means that unless you qualify who is doing the counting, your government counts are going to be wrong. At present (and I've looked for it) there is no comprehensive listing of all governments in the USA. TMLutas (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Texas
"Texas does not have townships" Is this correct? I always thought The Woodlands, TX was a township? Since I'm not an expert on the intricacies, I'll throw it in the Talk instead of an edit.216.227.244.219 (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No. It is the Town Center Improvement District which renamed itself as the The Woodlands, although it's a little convoluted how. Acts 1993, 73rd R.S.,ch. 289, General and Special Laws of Texas, also known as SB 1373, 73rd Regular Session, says:

"[...] there is hereby created and established within Montgomery County, Texas, in the form and manner hereinafter set forth, a special district, to be known as the Town Center Improvement District of Montgomery County, Texas, [...]"

"[...] The name of the district may be changed by resolution of the board of directors of the district at any time. [...]"


 * Later, Acts 2009, 81st R.S.,ch. 1397, General and Special Laws of Texas, also known as SB 2515, 81st Regular Session, mentions (without referring to what "district" means in the act, although it's plain by it's consistent references to other acts which define it as the Town Center Improvement District):

"[...] The legislature ratifies and confirms all governmental acts and proceedings of The Woodlands Township and its board and of The Woodlands Township Economic Development Zone and its governing body before the effective date of this Act, in: [...] changing the name of the district to The Woodlands Township; [...]"


 * Its website also connects the two names:

"The Town Center Improvement District (TCID) was created in 1993 by the Texas Legislature as a governmental agency charged with promoting economic development in The Woodlands Town Center, a 1,000-acre business and commerce district. In January 2010, all of these entities came together under one governmental organization called The Woodlands Township."


 * The district also has an "as amended" form of the 1993 act (amended as of 2015) that still calls it a "special district". Int21h (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

nonpartisan
What is the background that made many states (e.g. California) to require municipal government to be nonpartisan? – Kaihsu (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Standardized Name of state's local government
There appears to be no reigning naming convention on the different article names, such as the difference of Administrative divisions of Alaska, with Local government in California, should one be adopted? Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  23:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think all administrative divisions, necessarily, are also a local government. I think administrative divisions could potentially include things like state agency districts or regions, or even special state-chartered corporations with defined operating areas. It allows more flexibility. Since many unknowns might potentially be worthy of inclusion, I have been partial to "administrative divisions". int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, but wouldnt local government imply any form of government inside of a state? I agree with you in terms of administrative divisions being a better name, if a standardization is to take place I think it would be administrative divisions. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Possibly true, but even if an administrative division is local-ized, can't its government still be non-local/centralized? It just seems to me that while a state subdivision will always be local-ized geographically (or otherwise), its government need not be. "Local government" is just one of those set-piece phrases already in use in the US. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm true, I see the virtue of the two phrases. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  06:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As do I, it's not clear. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Local government in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630013226/http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Broken link and apparent error in number of local governments
As of 2017-10-28, the article claims "there were 89,004 local government units in the United States", and cited a page (2012 http://www.census.gov/govs/cog2012) that says, "Sorry, the page you requested has either been moved or is no longer available on this server." (It's officially not a broken link, which is why a bot didn't catch it.)

With a little more searching, I found https://www2.census.gov/govs/cog/g12_org.pdf, which reported that there were "90,106 state and local governments ... in existence [in the US] on June 30, 2012."

I don't feel I can afford the time now to try to revise the article with this in mind, especially since this is far from my area of expertise. However, I hope that this comment will help someone more competent than I make appropriate changes. It's clearly important, because this article has averaged 370 page views per day over the past 90 days, and the plot suggests a steady increase from roughly 270 per day 90 days ago.

Thank you to all who helped bring the article to this point. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)