Keywords
Company Districts, Local Government, Company Towns, Private, Corporate Planning, Governance, Municipal Power, Economic Geography, Land Use, Urban Zoning, Corporate Sovereignty
Abstract
Special districts that are owned or controlled by private entities and act almost uniformly like a company town can be dubbed a “company district.” These special districts, similar to historical company towns, have autonomy over the districts, control the local government, and only have to answer to the state government. Historical company towns like Pullman, Illinois and Hershey, Pennsylvania had almost canonical command over the land within their boundaries. Company districts operate their business similar to a company town—in a city that the private entity controls, but do not have employees living on-site. Company districts benefit by being immune to city or county regulations.
Similar to historic company towns in their heyday such as Pullman, Illinois, company districts are now at risk of adverse state legislation, regulation, or judicial action. This risk is exemplified by the Walt Disney Company, which until 2023, controlled the Reedy Creek Improvement District in central Florida, a prototypical company district that allowed them to self-govern at the town and county level. This example of a company district is significant, as the Florida state government took adverse action against Reedy Creek as a response to corporate political meddling. While Florida’s legal action is likely a political reaction, this story raises important questions about the dark side of company districts. Critics have issued warnings that company districts like Reedy Creek lack transparency, are undemocratic, and wield a vast level of unchecked powers.
Given recent state attempts to exert control over their operations, company districts should consider themselves on notice and at risk of adverse state legislation, regulation, or judicial action. This Note, in comparing company districts to the fate of company towns historically, concludes that state governments concerned about these special districts should take a bespoke approach to legislate against them. Historic company towns faced various adverse actions depending on the circumstances of their demise. Likewise, modern company districts are unique and should be addressed individually, rather than by sweeping legislative action as suggested by some recent commentators. Furthermore, federal courts have and can restrict the rights of private property owners, including the private entities that control company towns and company districts, to maintain protections for citizens as a whole.
Recommended Citation
30 Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L. 215 (2025).
Included in
Agency Commons, Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Business Intelligence Commons, Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, Other Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons
