Town of telluride v. San miguel valley Corp.: Extraterritoriality and local autonomy

Denver University Law Review

Volumn 86, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1311-1328

  Briffault, Richard ^a  

^a Columbia Law School ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349633192     PISSN: 08839409     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (102)

1. 185 P.3d 161 (Colo. 2008).
2. Id. at 164.
3. Id. at 169.
4. 545 U. S. 469 (2005).
5. Cf. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. City of Beaverton, 161 P.3d 926, 931 (Or. 2007) ("[I]t is legislative, and not home rule, authority that a city exercises when it acts extraterritorially.").
6. See, e.g., David E. Hunt, Comment, The Constitutionality of the Exercise of Extraterritorial Powers by Municipalities, 45 U. CHI. L. Rev. 151, 151-57 (1977).
7. See, e.g., Richard Briffault, The Local Government Boundary Problem in Metropolitan Areas, 48 STAN. L. REV. 1115, 1130-34 (1996).
8. See, e.g., Richard Briffault, Localism and Regionalism, 48 BUFF. L. Rev. 1 (2000).
9. See generally RICHARD BRIFFAULT & LAURIE REYNOLDS, CASES AND MATERIALS ON State and Local Government Law 174-93 (7th ed. 2009).
10. Russell Webber Maddox, Extraterritorial Powers of Municipalities in the United States 8 (1955).
11. Id.
12. See Sharpless v. Mayor of Philadelphia, 21 Pa. 147, 174-75 (1853).
13. In re Mayor of New York, 2 N. E. 642, 652-53 (N. Y. 1885).
14. Bd. of Trs. of Falmouth v. Watson, 68 Ky. (5 Bush) 660, 661-62 (1869).
15. Note, Extraterritorial Powers of Municipalities, 41 Harv. L. Rev. 894, 895 (1928).
16. See, e.g., Maddox, supra note 10, at 10-21 (water and sewage), 22-32 (utilities and transportation facilities), 51-57 (airports and parks);
17. William Anderson, The Extraterritorial Powers of Cities, 10 Minn. L. Rev. 475, 482-95 (1926).
18. Anderson, supra note 16, at 482.
19. Id. at 487-92.
20. Id. at 486, 495.
21. See Maddox, supra note 10, at 15-18 (extraterritorial sale of water), 27-29 (sale of power);
22. FRANK S. SENGSTOCK, EXTRATERRTTORIAL POWERS IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA 16-25 (1962) (sale of utility services).
23. SENGSTOCK, supra note 20, at 21-22;
24. see also City of N. Vernon v. Jennings Nw. Reg'l Utils., 829 N. E.2d 1, 7 (Ind. 2005).
25. See, e.g., Vill. of Orland Hills v. Citizens Utils. Co. of Ill., 807 N. E.2d 590 (Ill. App. Ct 2004);
26. GTE Nw. Inc. v. Or. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 39 P.3d 201 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
27. See, e.g., Anderson, supra note 16, at 482 (referring to water, sewage, and other utilities as "business powers");
28. cf. DeFazio v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. 679 P.2d 1316, 1338 (Or. 1984) (explaining that the fact that city engages in extraterritorial contracts or "other consensual transactions in goods or services" has little relevance to the question of whether the city can exert "coercive authority over people or property beyond its boundaries").
29. Anderson, supra note 16, at 572.
30. Maddox, supra note 10, at 10, 13.
31. Id at 51.
32. See, e.g., Louis F. Bartelt, Jr., Extraterritorial Zoning: Reflections on its Validity, 32 Notre Dame Law. 367, 386 (1957).
33. See Malone v. Williams, 103 S. W. 798, 804-06 (Tenn. 1907).
34. See Hunt, supra note 6, at 151-57.
35. Anderson, supra note 16, at 564.
36. MADDOX, supra note 10, at 2, 11, 24.
37. Id. at 11, 24, 83;
38. Anderson, supra note 16, at 564-65.
39. See, e.g., Kelley v. City of Griffin, 359 S. E.2d 644, 645-46 (Ga. 1987).
40. See Briffault & Reynolds, supra note 9, at 278-81.
41. Town of Telluride v. San Miguiel Valley Corp., 185 P.3d 161, 164-69 (Colo. 2008).
42. See BRIFFAULT & REYNOLDS, supra note 9, at 70-144. A third model of local government-local government as quasi-proprietary firm-applies primarily to special districts and special purpose governments, and not to general purpose governments like counties or municipalities.
43. See id. at 147-73.
44. See, e.g., Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161, 178-79 (1907).
45. See, e.g., Gerald E. Frug, The City as a Legal Concept, 93 HARV. L. Rev. 1059, 1062 (1980).
46. See BRIFFAULT & REYNOLDS, supra note 9, at 98-146.
47. See id. at 314-449.
48. See id at 281-314.
49. See, e.g., City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U. S. 204, 209 (1970);
50. Avery v. Midland County, 390 U. S. 474, 480 (1968).
51. Otis J. Bouwsma, The Validity of Extraterritorial Municipal Zoning, 8 Vand. L. Rev. 806, 814 (1955).
52. Note, supra note 15, at 897-98.
53. Anderson, supra note 16, at 581.
54. See, e.g., Malone v. Williams, 103 S. W. 798 (Tenn. 1907).
55. See, e.g., MADDOX, supra note 10, at 80-82;
56. Bartelt, supra note 27;
57. Bouwsma, supra note 43.
58. SENGSTOCK, supra note 20, at 72.
59. Id. at 50-51.
60. Id at 72.
61. 390 U. S. 474 (1968).
62. Id. at 481.
63. See id at 491.
64. See Hill v. Stone, 421 U. S. 289, 300-01 (1975);
65. City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski, 399 U. S. 204, 213 (1970). Limiting the electorate to special constituencies like taxpayers or land owners may be permissible in elections for the governments of special limited purpose districts.
66. See, e.g.. Ball v. James, 451 U. S. 355, 370-71 (1981);
67. Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U. S. 719, 728 (1973).
68. Avery, 390 U. S. at 481 n. 6.
69. Hunt, supra note 6, at 178-79.
70. 439 U. S. 60 (1978).
71. Id at 72 n. 8.
72. See id. at 71
73. (citing Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161, 178 (1907)).
74. Id. at 72;
75. see also id. at 12 n. 8.
76. Id at 74.
77. at 76 (Stevens, J., concurring).
78. See, e.g., Costco Wholesale Coip. v. City of Beaverton, 161 P.3d 926, 931 (Or. 2007) (" [I]t is legislative, and not home rule, authority that a city exercises when it acts extraterritorially.");
79. Philip v. Daley, 790 N. E.2d 961, 969 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003);
80. St. Andrews Pub. Serv. Dist. Comm'n v. Comm'rs of Pub. Works of Charleston, 344 S. E.2d 857, 858-59 (S. C. Ct. App. 1986).
81. See, e.g., Seigles, Inc. v. City of St. Charles, 849 N. E.2d 456, 458 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
82. See, e.g., City of Phoenix v. Hamish, 150 P.3d 245, 249-50 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006);
83. Kenneth Mebane Ranches v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 562, 570 (Cal. Ct App. 1992).
84. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Keck, 92 Cal. Rptr. 599, 602 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971).
85. See, e.g., GTE Nw. Inc. v. Or. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 39 P.3d 201, 208 (Or. Ct App. 2002).
86. Keck, 92 Cal. Rptr. at 602.
87. * 6 (Ohio Ct App. Jan. 12, 2001).
88. City of Scottsdale v. Mun. Court, 368 P.2d 637, 643 (Ariz. 1962);
89. see also Valley Twp. v. City of Coatesville, 894 A.2d 885, 889-90 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006) (discussing interaction of extraterritorial eminent domain and subdivision controls of community in which eminent domain power was exercised).
90. For a recent and particularly fevered example, see Ryan A. Kriegshauser, Note, E. T. Take Home: The Out-of-This-World Rationale for Extraterritorial Takings and Ignoring Their Inherent Conflict with the Fifth Amendment, 73 UMKC L. Rev. 925, 935 (2007).
91. See Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U. S. 60, 74 (1978).
92. See, e.g., Ware v. Henry County Water & Sewerage Auth., 575 S. E.2d 654, 780 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
93. See, e.g., Kenneth Mebane Ranches v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 562, 570 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992);
94. City of N. Vernon v. Jennings Nw. Reg'l Utils., 829 N. E.2d 1, 7 (Ind. 2005);
95. Valley Twp., 894 A.2d at 890;
96. Provo City v. Ivie, 94 P.3d 206, 209 (Utah 2004).
97. Town of Telluride v. San Miguel Valley Corp., 185 P.3d 161, 170 n. 8 (Colo. 2008).
98. Id. at 172.
99. See, e.g., Provo, 94 P.3d at 211.
100. See Brian P. Gregg, Comment, Valley Township v. City of Coatesville: The Future of Extraterritorial Takings, 17 WIDENER L. J. 629, 636-37 (2008).
101. See, e.g., Clayton P. Gillette, Regionalimtion and Interlocal Bargains, 76 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 190, 191 (2001).
102. Minor Myers III, Obstacles to Bargaining Between Local Governments: The Case of West Haven and Orange, Connecticut, 37 Urb. Law. 853, 854 (2005).