Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T07:25:43.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Government of “Rurban” Areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

John A. Perkins
Affiliation:
University of Michigan

Extract

Michigan has a metropolitan problem, but by no means confined to the one area of Detroit, commonly thought of as Michigan's only metropolitan region. Other Michigan cities also have “growing pains” as their populations sprawl beyond their formal boundaries. The Motor City continues to suffer from this ailment, but the disease has taken a new form. Not only are the urbanites moving to the suburbs, but the suburbanites are moving to the rural sections. In the smaller cities, the ever-widening circle of dispersion has been straightway from the core city to the unincorporated township. Here the migrating urbanites have not first formed incorporated suburbs, but have established themselves as that new specie, “rurbanites,” at once dependent on the unincorporated township for governmental services.

The 1940 census indicates that Michigan cities are losing population, but that considerable growth is going on beyond their city limits. Second-class cities in Michigan display what is undoubtedly happening to corresponding cities in other states as well. While this state has in Detroit one of the much-studied and publicized metropolitan regions, it has forty-two cities with between 10,000 and 175,000 people. Notwithstanding a state-wide population gain of 8.3 per cent in the last decade, 30 per cent of the state's cities of 10,000 or more lost inhabitants, whereas only four counties out of eighty-three showed a decrease. It is significant, however, that the counties which underwent the most rapid growth were those with large urban centers. For example, Genesee county gained 7.5 per cent, whereas it county seat, Flint, which is also the third largest city in the state, lost two per cent. Jackson county showed an increase of nearly one per cent, while the city of the same name lost 11 per cent.

Type
American Government and Politics
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1943

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 School District of City of Pontiac v. City of Pontiac, 262 Mich. 338 (1933).

2 Ford, Robert S. and Waxman, Albert, Financing Government in Michigan, 7475.Google Scholar Between the adoption of the amendment and 1939, the average state tax rate fell 5.45 mills.

3 Tugwell, R. G., “The Real Estate Dilemma,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 2, pp. 2430 (Winter, 1942).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Letter from Carroll Clark, November 1, 1942. It is interesting to note that the tax rate was still a consideration in Flint even though the city had voted itself under the mill tax limitation. Any part of the tax levy which is made for service on debt incurred prior to the effective date of the tax limitation is not subject to the fifteen-mill limitation. About 18 per cent of the present property tax levy is used to pay principal and interest on this “old” debt.

5 Bromage, A. W., “Shall We Save the Township?”, Nat. Mun. Rev., Vol. 25, pp. 585588 (Oct., 1936).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Acknowledgment is made to the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies for a grant which made this study possible.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.