Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T11:33:26.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Hartford Adopts a Metropolitan Charter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Lane W. Lancaster*
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes on Municipal Affairs
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1930

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Special Act No. 346, 1927.

2 The East Hartford representatives withdrew from the commission, and that town took no part in the formation of the district.

3 Special Act No. 511, 1929.

4 This town, next to Hartford itself, is the largest and wealthiest of any in the proposed district, being a choice residential suburb of the metropolis. The residents of the town seem to have feared that the proposed plan would lead to eventual annexation, and had a not unnatural desire to prevent their affairs from falling into the hands of Hartford politicians.

5 Section 29.

6 Section 28.

7 The so-called state tax on towns is laid as follows: the General Assembly determines upon the amount to be raised for state purposes. (It is now $1,250,000, ch. 294, Public Acts, 1929.) The average of the taxes laid locally for the past three years is then computed. Each town then pays to the state a tax equal to the proportion which local revenues bear to the collections of all the towns in the state. Section 224, Gen. Stat. Rev. of 1918. The counties raise their revenue in the same way.

8 Serial bonds only are permitted in the political sub-divisions of the state.

9 Special Act No. 472, 1929.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.