Talk:Paper township

Untitled

Here's an interesting article about paper townships, from a newspaper in Knox County, Ohio: http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/032505/annex.html -SwissCelt 18:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Definition of a paper township

It still isn't really clear to me what counts as a paper township. Here are the possibilities I can think of:

1. A municipality is incorporated and is not part of its township.
2. A municipality that is part of the township separates from it later on (like Richfield in Summit County)
3. An entire township incorporates at once (Streetsboro, with the exception of the pre-existing Sugar Bush Knolls)
4. A municipality annexes the remainder of a township that it belongs to.
5. A municipality annexes the remainder of a township that it doesn't belong to. I think the township becomes defunct.
6. A municipality merges with a township. I think the township becomes defunct.
7. Land is annexed in a Type 2 annexation (Thanks for the article, SwissCelt). The residents remain part of the township while living in the municipality.

The only ones of these cases that I'm sure of being a paper township is the Type 2 annexation, but that is only because it is in the newspaper. This concept seems very different from that of a municipality that is separated from its township, so I'm a bit confused. I also don't know about big cities. Are there Akron and Cleveland paper townships? --Beirne 12:51, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Would Northampton Township, Summit County, Ohio be Akron's "paper township"? Seems like that would be the most likely candidate, if indeed Akron has left one. I'm also wondering if this is a phenomenon limited to (or defined by) Ohio, as say an urban township would be; or if other US states and other countries have paper townships.

Akron was created in the boundaries of Portage Township, which no longer exists. It only later annexed its way into Northampton. I'm guessing the paper township would either be Portage or Akron itself if there is one. --Beirne 15:48, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

All land was in a township, which are created by the county commissioners. A city can withdraw from a township, as Mason, Ohio did with Deerfield Township, Warren County, Ohio circa 1997. There is now a fictional "Mason Township" which exists only on paper, the actual governing is done by the city. Otherwise, I think your scenario list is complete. To find out what the township would be, you should contact the county auditor. He'd know. PedanticallySpeaking 18:11, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean that Streetsboro Township, Portage County, Ohio is a paper township? As the township incorporated at large into a city, there was no separate procedure withdrawing the city from the township. SwissCelt 18:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Just for clarification, my impression is that scenarios 1,2,3 and 4 describe a municipality that is also a paper township. Scenario 7 describes a different type of paper township. Correct? --Beirne 22:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Here is an article dealing with the municipality form of a paper township: http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/5680521.htm. --Beirne 22:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I checked an older edition of the Secretary of State's municipal roster--the new ones omit this info--and it states that Portage Township is "co-extensive with the City of Akron" and Streetsboro Township is "co-extensive with the City of Streetsboro". PedanticallySpeaking 15:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the Beacon Journal has an article on what looks like Type 2 annexation at http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/12104332.htm. It turns out this type can be an unwanted effect of missing the final step in the annexation process. --Beirne 11:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

A big problem may be looming for Ohio because cities have not been formally realigning their borders after annexation [1]. This leaves areas that are in both the township and the city, but residents have not been assessed the township taxes. This and other peculiarities of Ohio townships may make an Ohio township article worthwhile.--Beirne 13:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The Canton Repository Suggests that all municipalities are coexistive with the township they come from unless they have a township created with boundaries Coexistive with The Municipality. I assume this creates a "Paper township" since no Civil township government will Ever be seated and the municipal government is already there. here's an article where a Local city is planning on separating from the township they came from [2] and another [3]. "But most cities around Ohio are incorporated as a separate township. Canton, for example, also is McKinley Township, Alliance is Butler Township, Louisville is Constitution Township and Massillon is Massillon Township. Captainkang 05:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cities in townships

I'm still not clear on something. For cities and villages which have not created their own townships thereby withdrawing from the townships they once overlayed, residents in these cities and villages pay both municipal and township taxes? What kind of services would a township offer within the part of it that's in a city and thus already receiving city services? This kind of set-up really sounds likea boon and avantage for townships at the expense of a city. I know in Michigan, once a city annexes land from a township, that portion of the township ceases to exist, civilly. It seems like Ohio is most similar to Indiana and (parts of) Illinois in that municipalities are a layer on top of townships, whereas here in Michigan, cities and townships exist on the same plane, side by side. Cities do no overlay townships. --Criticalthinker (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: Yes, by default, Ohio considers a municipality to be subordinate to one or more townships – overlaid, in other words. Townships only provide a subset of the services that a municipality provides, such as parks and road maintenance. In an unincorporated area, policing is handled by the county sheriff and sewage lines may be provided by a neighboring city. In an incorporated area (where a city or village has been overlaid), the city doesn't need to duplicate the services provided by the township but may do so, I suppose. Until a city or village withdraws from its surrounding township, residents pay taxes to both the municipality and the township. On the flip side, residents may also vote in elections for both city/village council and township board of trustees. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 04:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mxn:, I guess my point is that it I don't see how matter if you get to vote in township elections if you're not receiving any kind of service for your taxes from said township. But, I guess that also applies to city-county set-ups, too. But in this case, you're paying taxes to a township and a county on top of paying taxes to a city from which all your services are provided. This is just bizarre to me. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. --Criticalthinker (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: At least in the Cincinnati area, the villages and cities that haven't withdrawn from their townships are typically smaller, so they don't necessarily provide all the services that the township does, or services like the fire department will be shared somehow. But you're right, sometimes the township is just another layer of taxation. That's almost always an immediate catalyst for withdrawal, and it's also an argument that some people make in favor of abolishing township government in the state. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

We have a similar set-up here in Michigan with incorporated villages. Unlike incorporated cities, villages are still part of the township(s) in which they reside. I guess the difference is that it sounds like in Michigan, villages generally have more services than small cities and villages in Ohio. It's why settlement usually incorporate within townships in the first place, to have things like a more centralized police and fire force. A settlement, here, isn't going to incorporated unless it's to have their own police force or fire department. Though, there is consolidate services in some cases, so that's not unheard of. Anyway, in Michigan, this is usually the impetus for a village to re-incorporated as a city, to remove it from the township. --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW, a little off topic, but the unsourced paragraph about Wayne Township and Huber Heights in the "Legal Fiction" sections might be wrong. I can't find any corrobation for the claim that Huber Heights does not cover a small piece of Wright-Patterson AFB. It's legal authority may not cover this territory of the city, but the city's zoning map clearly shows a small part of the base within the city limits. Unless someone has some sourcing for this claim, I'm going to remove the section speaking of Wayne Township/Huber Heights. I'm sure there are some better example of rumps of townships with no people living on them in any case that could be used. --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. I didn't write that section, but I left it alone because I never got around to verifying it. Thanks for double-checking. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I might do a bit more rewording and clean-up, too, over time. For instance, I think the "Legal Fiction" section is oddly named and kind of inconsistent with how similar pages of types of municipalities/local government are done on wiki. I'd like to rename it "Description" or something more common. I'd also like to find an example of a "rump township" - a township that has not been fully incorporated into a city/village, but where the remaining part has no population - but I don't know the state well enough to know if such an township exists. I suspect this is a very rare type of paper township if it even exists at all. --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Just an update on this. I did do some rewording, clean-up, and adding of source materials, though I still haven't figured out a better name for the "Legal fiction" section. And, BTW, I in fact did find out that there is a "rump" of Wayne Township remaining after the incorporation of Huber Heights. Since part of the township covered Wright-Patterson AFB, it was not incorporated into the city and remains, though without any population. It's the only township of its kind in the state. --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

paper in an envelope

Once the territory of a township is completely enveloped by cities and villages, the township government ceases to function under ORC 703.22.

That word enveloped bothers me. To me the most natural meaning is 'surrounded'; but why should a township vanish if surrounded by cities? It's not a game of go.

Any objection to replacing enveloped with covered? Other suggestsions: incorporated, annexed ... —Tamfang (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, that's not what the cited law says: it speaks of townships swallowed by a single municipal corporation. Perhaps another section is more relevant. —Tamfang (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the term is misleading. Township government ceases only when its territory is is entirely subsumed by a municipal corporation. older ≠ wiser 22:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up

After updating and rewriting parts of the article months ago to clarify and correct a few things, I realized I have a new set of questions I haven't quite been able to find the answer to. So, we've covered that there are two kinds of "paper" townships: 1.) When an incorporated place(s) annexes the entirety of a township, and 2.) when an incorporated place formally and legally withdraws from its surrounding township(s). We also know that in example 2. that a paper township can not be considered an adjacent township for the purposes of annexation.

So I had a few questions after noticing that Ohio's major cities all seem to be withdrawn from their surrounding townships.

1. Large cities are usually larger - sometimes significantly so - than the original township they grew in creating a "defunct township." They are also routinely marked as being independent of surrounding townships into which they expanded creating a "paper township." This means they both include or included a defunct township which was then incorporated into a paper township, right? So this means that the original township (the defunct township) technically stopped existing even as a paper township once all of its territory was removed by the paper township, correct? So for instance, Cincinnati, St. Bernard, and Elmwood Place by the 1950's had annexed the entire township of Mill Creek. But it also appears that each also invidually withdrew from the township at some time. That means that Mill Creek doesn't even legally exist, right? Also, is anyone able to find the names of the townships of the paper townships in the big cities? Usually, the paper township is named after the city, but as shown in the article, this is not always the case. So I'm pretty curious to see the names of the paper townships of Cleveland, Akron, Cincy, etc...if anyone can find them.

2. Finally, I think I know the answer to this, but a paper township must be extended every time a city annexes into a surrounding township to keep a city withdrawn from the surrounding townships, correct?

Thanks. --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't really paid much attention to this for some time. But I don't think this statement is quite accurate Cities and villages in Ohio, which all sprang from townships ... I think some of the older cities existed prior to the establishment the township. Also, it may be more accurate to say that municipal governments (cities and villages) co-exist as parallel system with township bodies, which as subdivisions of a county, overlay municipalities unless the municipality withdraws from a township. older ≠ wiser 01:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker and Bkonrad: Most townships were created by boards of county commissioners rather than the state legislature, so in the state's early history, the situation was fluid and probably varied from county to county. State law regarding townships has also changed over time. Cincinnati was settled in 1788. Mill Creek Township was created as carved out of Cincinnati Township, which was erected in 1791, but Cincinnati wasn't formally incorporated as a town (a status that no longer exists) until 1802. The township was originally several times larger than Cincinnati is today. At some point, the township shrank enough that the three municipalities were able to subsume it as they simultaneously grew. (Nearby Columbia Township started out even larger but is barely hanging on.)

I'm unsure if it happened as a result of withdrawal or annexation after withdrawal. ORC 703.22 automatically abolishes the township whenever a single municipality becomes coextensive with it. It all depends on whether Cincinnati (or St. Bernard or Elmwood Place) withdrew before or after annexing the last unincorporated territory in the township. Cincinnati also subsumed Storrs and Spencer townships, which were both tiny. There isn't good documentation about either township, but the date they were abolished may offer some clues.

As to your other question, the prevailing opinion – at least in the Cincinnati area, where withdrawal is more common [4] – is that county commissioners should update the paper township's boundaries following an annexation, just in case. Otherwise, the discrepancy can cause headaches or errors in election and tax administration.

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 11:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, Cincy and Hamilton County didn't seem to know the answer to the first question, either, when I emailed them. Guess it really depends in which townships the other parts of the city outside of Mill Creek Twp Cincy was in, too. What's interesting is the law says that you can't use a paper township to receive new territory from a surrounding township. So that means, for instance, once Mill Creek Twp was all eaten up by Cincy, Cincy couldn't use that paper township during further annexation into other townships. Long story short, it basically means that Cincy had to create multiple paper townships. But I can find no records of them having withdrawn from any of the townships it only partially extended into.

As for the second question, I figured out the answer to that one, too, over time. The answer is unequivocally 'yes.' I think even the article you linked to says that in so many words. A city must voluntarily remove itself as part of the municipal annexation, or that annexed section remains in said township. I've seen a few cases of this where you've got cities in multiple townships. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: The plot thickens. In 1834, Cincinnati Township became a paper township coextensive with Cincinnati with the annexation of previously unincorporated Mount Adams, and township elections were abolished by a new city charter. [5][6][7] By 1904, officials were confused about whether to modify the township boundaries following further annexations by the city into Millcreek and Columbia townships. [8]

As early as 1912, there were questions about whether Cincinnati's annexation of most of Millcreek Township had put the township out of existence, but it must've been the case that the other cities hadn't withdrawn from the township by then. [9] Norwood withdrew in 1938, and Elmwood Place and St. Bernard did likewise in 1943, whittling the township down to only Wesleyan Cemetery on 25 acres (10 ha) in what is today Northside. [10][11] At that point, Attorney General Thomas J. Herbert considered the enclave a part of Cincinnati, and the city considered declaring it to be so. [12]

Owners of burial plots resisted annexation by Cincinnati because of fears that the city would destroy it with a new road. [13] (The fears were well-founded. [14]) The cemetery's sexton lived there but didn't own the property, while the board that did own it didn't reside there. Without any freeholders, the township was indeed an example of a defunct township, with only one eligible voter who had a special polling place set up for them but couldn't serve all three trustee positions at once. [15]

The cemetery became something of a no man's land because no local police department was assigned jurisdiction over it. A bill was introduced to the General Assembly so that, once a township enclave within a city becomes defunct, it automatically gets annexed to the city. [16] No mention is made of the bill after that. Mentions of Millcreek Township in the Cincinnati Enquirer dropped precipitously after 1953 to little more than legal notices, but apparently Millcreek Township remained a zombie as late as 1961. [17]

Somehow or other, Cincinnati did eventually end up annexing the cemetery, but the controversy didn't end there. After decades of mismanagement, the cemetery was left without an owner, and the city fought in court to avoid having to take over maintenance (they lost). [18][19]

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 02:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I dumped all this detail into Mill Creek Township, Hamilton County, Ohio. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 16:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mxn: I found the certificate making Wesleyan Cemetery part of Cincinnati in 1953 (because of the way the statute was worded, it technically wasn't "annexed," but it is within city limits). The information has been added to the Millcreek Township and Wesleyan Cemetery articles. GeoMac (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Some additional historical context about Cincinnati's annexation drive and consequent counterincorporations, complete with a barely legible map of Cincinnati's annexation history: [20] I've only sifted through a minority of the mentions of the township in the newspapers on Newspapers.com. There was plenty of coverage in the local German newspapers, but I can't read a lick of German. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 04:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it'd be best to add the "Unpopulated townsip" section back to the "Formation" section as a step so as not to further confuse things. And if not a bullet point, just post that section of information below the last bullet point within the "Formation" section. It's an interesting case of a paper township, but I'm not sure one that justifies the confusion of putting it down the page in its own section. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Lancaster

Check out the "Lancaster City township" recognized by the Census Bureau. [21] I don't have the full story, but based on the shape of its boundary, Lancaster must've withdrawn from its surrounding townships at some point, then annexed some land outside its paper township. The Census Bureau responded by synthesizing a township out of the territory that had long ago withdrawn. [22] But there was a Lancaster Township at some point, probably the same one that serves as a paper township for Lancaster today. They must've chosen to name the synthesized township systematically instead of researching the state of paper townships in Fairfield County. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

?

I'm confused:

"A municipality may withdraw from its surrounding township, creating a township coextensive with the municipality that only exists on paper for the purpose of satisfying the requirement that the entire county lies within a township."

Is there a typo somewhere in this sentence? A requirement that an entire county lies within a township? Please rewrite this for clarity and give an example if any such scenarios exists. Criticalthinker (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks like that language was added in an extensive re-write by Mxn. I think it is trying to say that townships encompass every bit of a county (even if only nominally) -- not that the entire county is within a [single] township. older ≠ wiser 11:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what was meant. I think that wording was in the article prior to my rewrite. Maybe a clearer way to put it would be that the entire county is subdivided into townships, or that townships cover the entire county? Minh Nguyễn ^💬 15:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, now. My advice to increase clarity would be the make that last fact a standalone fact somewhere else in the article. In fact, it may even be important enough to add in the opening of the article since the entire concept of a paper township is based around the requirement that counties be divided into townships. Though, what complicates any rewording is that I think there is another part of the article that speaks to there being territory/cases in cities in which townships no longer exist, even as paper townships, but I'd need to read back through the article to see if that's the case. Criticalthinker (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not technically accurate that all territory in Ohio is subdivided into townships (whether they be paper or not). Proceedings under Ohio Rev. Code 503.09 render municipal corporations township-less in every sense. This is not the norm, though, because that section requires that the people of the township file the petition, and their interests would often be against losing the tax dollars inside the municipal corporations. The only example I am aware of is Sugarcreek Township separating from Bellbrook City in 1987 (see Greene County Deed Book 367, Page 578), although I suspect there are others. GeoMac (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@GeoMac: This would be a great point to add to the article, especially if you can find other examples like Sugarcreek Township. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 03:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)