The following comment was just left in another thread by a reader calling himself Applejack. I thought that it might kickstart an interesting conversation.

I recently moved to Ypsilanti from Atlanta – with a year spent in Madison, WI between the two. And I have relatives in high places in Michigan politics. Living in these different cities, and talking to these politicians, (and reading this blog) has taught me one important thing about Michigan politics: charter townships are killing Michigan cities and keeping the state a suburban sprawled mess.

Michigan is the only state in the union with townships that cannot be annexed by growing cities. It creates extra levels of bureaucracy and red tape. It punishes successful cities by keeping tax revenues flowing to the suburbs. and those revenues go to the entrenched interests maintaining this status quo.

Why is this not campaign issue? Why aren’t smart people in government doing anything about this? Are there other people out there who see this the way I do?

Is it true that Michigan is the only state in the nation where cities can’t annex surrounding townships? In all the discussions we’ve had here about City/Township relations over the years, I don’t believe that’s ever come up. I know that we’ve talked about annexation, but I don’t recall anyone ever pointing out that doing so would be considerably easier in the other 49 states.

update: The comments so far have been great. If you have the time, go and check them out. Following are a few examples. The first comes from Murph:

“Is it true that Michigan is the only state in the nation where cities can’t annex surrounding townships?”

Many States don’t even have townships - just cities vs. unincorporated land. That’s the case where it’s easiest for a city to recapture development on the fringe and prevent metropolitan fragmentation. Any kind of local government through a Township structure makes annexation / regional governance more difficult. Some policymakers and historians have argued that younger cities, in non-township states and without a lot of incorporated suburbs, have been able to leverage this increased annexation power to provide better economies, lower poverty and crime rates, better school systems, and reduced racial segregation.

Yes, Charter Townships are (to my knowledge) unique to Michigan, but that institution is not necessarily responsible for fragmentation. Look at cities like Boston, Chicago, or Minneapolis/St. Paul. All of them are every bit as landlocked as Detroit (or Ypsi, if you like), even without Charter Townships - because in those States the areas around cities just incorporate as Cities themselves.

And a lack of Charter Townships in Michigan would have meant exactly that happened here. And, in fact, it did. Look at the Cities of Troy, Romulus, Livonia, Farmington Hills, Sterling Heights, Southfield. All of these look, geographically, a lot like Townships - because they are. They’re whole Townships, minus whatever part had already been incorporated as a City, that incorporated themselves in order to (generally) prevent further annexation or acquire better taxation powers, things that becoming a Charter Township now achieves. Not having Charter Townships wouldn’t have prevented the current Ypsi City/Township split - in that case, Ypsi Twp would likely now be “The City of Ypsilanti Heights” (can’t have two cities called “Ypsilanti").

And a Charter Township is not immune to annexation - it just requires that the property owners want to be annexed. If you’ll recall, there was some talk a few years ago by one of the homebuilders (maybe Pulte?) about lining up an annexation from Superior Charter Township into Ypsilanti - because they thought Ypsi’s zoning would be friendlier to their development than Superior’s. If I recall, that involved lining up some other property owner whose property would link the Pulte site to the City, providing the contiguity necessary to petition for annexation. (I believe this is how the Starkweather House became part of the City, in fact, in the 1960s - as part of a plan to develop an apartment complex on that land. The development fell through, but not until after the owner had the land annexed into the City.)

And this one comes from a reader in the Township calling himself Edge of the Sprawl, in response to the idea that we, the City folk, try to impose annexation by force:

…If your militia tries to cross 94, they’ll have to fight their way through more than 50,000 township residents who want no part of your failed economic policies. Turn your efforts to fixing your own city and keep your nose out other communities. You’re wrong about other communities wanting to merge with your police department. Every single one of them rejected the possibility. There will be no further talks. Your city officials just threw more money down the drain on the feasibility studies. The cost of your police services is outrageous - few persons would find that acceptable in their communities.

You can’t annex the township, we’ll never vote for it. Any township official who entangles our tax dollars with any further consolidation of services will be recalled. In 50 years, the City of Ypsilanti may be the porn capitol of Michigan, but the township will be the center of economic prosperity.

If you like the City of Ypsi … good. You can keep it. The majority of residents in the State prefer their Charter Townships.

I really have no idea what the answer is, but one of these days, just for fun, we should start putting yard signs up all over the City saying, “Annex the Township.” I’m sure all kinds of craziness would ensue.