User talk:GeoMac

Fairfield & Heritage

Hey, would the decisions referenced in the paper township article about Fairfield happen to be available somewhere online? --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: Sorry, I always forget to include URLs for courthouse documents, as their systems tend to change on a regular basis and almost never allow for direct linking to individual documents. All 3 resolutions that I added today are online. I went back and either included a direct link (if the book/page reference is a hyperlink) or a link to the Recorder's system (if the Recorder is hyperlinked). GeoMac (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: To clarify, the resolutions are online, but I don't think anything beyond that is. It's possible that more discussion of the petitions was journalized in the Board of County Commissioners' Journals, but I doubt there's a proper decision or opinion beyond the resolution. GeoMac (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

On Ohio Rev. Code §709.43-.48, how is it that the merged township would not exist as a paper township? I'm not even seeing where that's implied. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: The word merger in itself implies that only one corporate body entity would survive. There are clues in the text showing that's what they mean. For example, in Ohio Rev. Code §709.451(A)(2): "The territorial boundaries of the resulting municipal corporation or township" -- if a paper township were to survive, the "or" would need to be "and." In the second paragraph of Ohio Rev. Code §709.47(A), the "corporate existence and the offices" of the township would be terminated -- this is different from Ohio Rev. Code §703.22, where only the offices are abolished. At least 3 cities fall under this scenario, all in Summit County: Green, Hudson, and New Franklin. See also the wording for the 2003 referendum for New Franklin.

I would contrast this with paper townships, which are essentially one layer of a coterminous township-village, and where if for some reason part of the township no longer falls in the village, it causes major issues, including possible restoration of township government. A great example of this, also in Summit County, is Boston Heights, where an attempted detachment in 1965 seems to have caused legal confusion as to the status of the township (the State seems to think it created a whole new mini-township, but I disagree based on the recorded legal documents -- I wish I had some news articles saved on this). See Deed Book 4465, Page 439 for the detachment and Book 4638, Page 133 for its re-annexation. FYI: the links only work for the first page of the document -- to see the rest, you have to click "Book Archive," type the book and page in, and use the left and right arrow buttons to move between pages.--GeoMac (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC), edited 10:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC).

This seems to be a highly unconventional interpretation of the law. It may be a different legal theory of a township, but a defunct township is also a paper township. I believe all of the examples you gave are also listed as being 'defunct' paper townships on the county article. And in fact, I'd argue that for the examples of where a coterminous village and township incorporated as a city - and not where a township remnant and incorporated city merged - the township would still clearly exist as the city's paper township. I guess I just interpret it to mean that this is an involuntary creation of a paper township; certainly a different process, but with the same outcome. Otherwise, what you're telling me is that the merged city-/village-township would have to create a township if it wanted to annex outside its boundaries without having to withdraw from said extra-municipal territory. Personally, I do not read the referenced laws to mean that annexation and merging have two different outcomes (one a paper township, the latter no township). --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: Without getting into the weeds, I'd mention that, when the paper township article was created, the only discussion I see in the talk page about this seems to agree with the position that merged townships (scenario 6) aren't paper townships.

Thank you

Thank you for correcting and expanding the Paper township and Mill Creek Township, Hamilton County, Ohio articles, solving some of the questions that had confounded me and Criticalthinker last year. Now I know how to look up the B.O.C.C. resolutions in case that becomes necessary in the future.

In case you haven't seen it before, OpenHistoricalMap is a sister project of OpenStreetMap that's building an editable world map with a time slider as a platform for documenting historical geography. The project is very much in its infancy right now, apart from some promising pilot projects, but I think it would really help to add some large-scale features like historical administrative boundaries as a framework for mappers to fill in the other details. Ultimately, Wikipedia will be able to embed OpenHistoricalMap for historical topics just as it currently embeds OpenStreetMap in articles about present-day topics. Both projects already integrate deeply with Wikidata. If this (or OpenStreetMap) interests you, I'd be happy to explain more and strategize on how to increase coverage of our respective areas of interest there. (Thanks for reading this shameless plug!)

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 01:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)