{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019880715705765408, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.1030303030303035, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Bringing the State (Government) Back In

Theories of urban power have explored limitations on municipal governance by power elites, by global economic forces, and by economic competition. Less attention has been given to the impact of state government. This article explores the state role in recent secession conflicts in Los Angeles (San Fernando Valley) and New York City (Staten Island). Secession proponents expanded the scope of conflict to their state governments. Although both cities eventually survived secession battles, both were forced to accede to significant reforms. Though state interference with home rule is always a possibility because of the formidable role of the state in local government, it is not inevitable. The capacity of local political actors to form alliances at the state level and political incentives for state actors to get involved are crucial. Older debates about state limitations on urban home rule have much to offer in discussions of the twenty-first-century city.