Pros and cons of Arizona City incorporation and my comments

From a document called "Municipal Incorporation in Arizona" prepared by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, under the section entitled "Pros and Cons of Incorporation:"

The "Pros:"

"1. Incorporation establishes a city or town government through which a community can express itself, address its problems and supply necessary services to the area. The community can exercise self-determination with regard to the nature and level of local services."

However, incorporation isn't the only method by which services can be supplied.

"2. Municipal government is more responsive to the people living within the community. The members of the city and town council are closer to the people and, as a result, react more quickly to the community's requests."

Rapid response to their requests is a service the people will have to pay extra for.

"3. A city or town government will receive substantial amounts of state revenues which do not flow to an unincorporated community."

Fine, but what's the bottom line? Will the taxpayers end up being net winners or net losers?

"4. An incorporated city or town has additional powers not found in an unincorporated community. An unincorporated community is under the jurisdiction of the county and, as a result, does not have much control over the level of services provided to the residents. The county must provide services as uniformly as possible throughout the unincorporated areas of the county. On the other hand, a city or town council has the authority to intensify services within the community."

But again, "intensified" services come with a price tag.

5. An incorporated city or town is able to plan for the future growth of the community by adopting planning and zoning regulations which will provide for controlled land use. This regulation protects the community against undesirable land use patterns."

It's been suggested that an Arizona City government might somehow try to control or eliminate rental housing as a means to protect property values. Are Arizona City property owners really willing to give up their right to rent their property in exchange for the uncertain possibility of a higher future value? From a purely practical point of view, seems like pie in the sky. From a property rights point of view, injustice.

"In addition, incorporated cities and towns may adopt building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical codes in the interest of public health, safety and welfare."

If codes are necessary, are the Pinal County codes already in place somehow insufficient?

"6. A separate city or town preserves the unity and pride of a particular community and maintains local individuality."

Don't see that the lack of a municipal bureaucracy hinders anyone from preserving the unity and pride or maintaining local individuality of unincorporated Arizona City. 

"7. As a governmental unit, the city or town can better represent its citizens in transactions with the county, the State and Federal governments."

I would think citizens had best be represented by a lawyer in transactions with the county, state, and federal governments. A lawyer can  be hired to solve specific problems. A municipal bureaucracy just hangs around drawing salaries even if there aren't any "transactions."

 "In addition, local government may be used as a vehicle for positive progress in the community."

 Any "progress" achieved by a government must necessarily be seen in the light of the fact that government doesn't have any resources of its own. All it can do is confiscate resources from some people and re-distribute them to others.

"8. Municipalities may be the instrumentality for providing numerous utility services such as water, sewer, garbage and trash collection, gas and electrical service if the council decides to enter into these operations."

Why would the residents of Arizona City want to change their present utility providers?

The "Cons:"

"1. Incorporation is unnecessary because the particular needs of the community are limited in scope. The residents of the community may prefer to organize a special district to meet these limited needs. For example, the community may create a rural fire district to satisfy the necessity for fire protection, or a special district may be formed to fulfill other particular needs such as sewer service. As a result, the special district approach may be more appropriate if the residents of an area want to incorporate only to provide one specific service. However, a special district is not a substitute for incorporation, and the residents of a community should be careful in creating more than one in the same area. The creation of a number of special districts for one area leads to unnecessary levels of government if the area is incorporated at some later date."

Can't "special districts" (or incorporations) be un-created? If not, why not?

 "2. The separate incorporation of an area which is economically and physically part of a larger community will produce what is known as a 'rump' incorporation. This situation can produce an incorporated city or town with inadequate resources or physical facilities necessary to meet its needs. This is particularly true if the character of the community is predominantly residential. A 'residential community' may discover after incorporation that its tax base can only maintain a minimal level of public service. In this case, it might be to the community's advantage to be annexed into an existing city or town

In which case, the community's property owners will a) be taxed more than the value of the services they receive, b) be taxed exactly as much as the value of the services they receive, or c) be taxed less than the value of the services they receive. I think b) is highly unlikely and a) highly likely. In any case, creating a municipal bureaucracy to provide services is analogous to buying health insurance to pay for all medical expenses: the added costs of a middle man makes the price go up.

 or remain unincorporated."

Hear, hear.

"3. The community is too small in either land area or population to serve as an efficient and effective unit of government. It may be difficult, if not impossible, in extremely small areas to provide for an adequate level of services. It may be more advantageous for an area of this nature to receive services from the county."

Not applicable to Arizona City.

 "4. The incorporation of a small area which is an integral part of a larger metropolitan area will create a costly duplication of local services. This situation can lead to a lack of coordinated and orderly urban growth as well as a lower level of such vital services as police, fire, water and sanitation."

N/A

 "5. The area possesses certain rural or farm characteristics which it wishes to retain, and incorporation is an undesirable step towards urbanization."

 N/A

"6. The most common argument against incorporation is that it will increase taxes. Every incorporated city and town has imposed some additional taxation, most often a local sales tax."

At the very least, the creation of a municipality puts taxes on the table.