Talk:Paper township

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cities in townships 

message: :
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  paper in an envelope 

message: Check out the "Lancaster City township" recognized by the Census Bureau.  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.  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)
thread_title:  Lancaster 

message: 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)
replies: text: It looks like that language was added in an extensive re-write by . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
thread_title:  ?