Category: Corporate Voters Project

Or, Did a Shit Storm Over Sprawl Lead to Corporate Enfranchisement?

Corporate Voters Project – Research Note #4

When I first heard of Smyrna, Delaware, I thought of smoking opium. But now, I think of corporations voting.[0]

Let me start again. 

In the early nineteenth-century, Americans went to the Ottoman port of Smyrna to buy opium, to resell it in China. They were eager to find a cheaper way to pay for the tea they bought at Guangzhou (Canton) – the Spanish silver dollars that Chinese merchants preferred were too expensive, and shipping kegs of coins cut into their profit margins something fierce. So, taking a page from the East India Company’s business plan, Americans sailed the Mediterranean to visit Smyrna (modern-day Izmir, Turkey) and buy smokable opium, which they then smuggled into China, exchanging it for tea. American firms profited massively from trafficking in an illegal narcotic from West Asia to buy a popular stimulant in East Asia  – drug dealing is good money, turns out! – and in the process helped kick off a century of violent invasion and civil war in the Qing empire that killed tens of millions of people, and addicted millions more. [1] 

I spent over a decade reading and writing about this history, and it pickled my brain in a specific way: which is why when I first moved to Delaware and heard about “Smyrna,” I thought “smoking opium.” 

But the nineteenth-century people living in Duck Creek Cross-Roads – what became Smyrna, Delaware – had a different obsession. The local lore is that they renamed their dockside village after an ancient Anatolian city because a Methodist evangelical extraordinaire named Francis Asbury had preached them the good dope about Christ’s redemption of mankind from sin, and in his sermon quoted a Bible verse mentioning Smyrna. The holy flame of Asbury’s call to Christian conversion – mixed, perhaps, with some of hellfire’s heat – branded the city’s name upon the Kent County villagers’ hearts. Later that year they appealed to the General Assembly, asking to have the name of their unincorporated hamlet changed to “Smyrna.”[2] The wise men of Dover agreed, and it’s been an easy-to-mumble moniker ever since. 

My more recent research has changed what Smyrna means to me. The town is one of the 70% of Delaware municipalities that allows corporations to vote in local elections. I’ve spent the last couple of weeks investigating how a small town came to enfranchise corporations in special elections for annexation and for bond referenda. And further, I wanted to figure out why Smyrna used two different mechanisms for corporate voting: for annexations, “one man, one vote” – but for bonds, one vote per land parcel (e.g. the more you own the more you get to vote). 

I’m not sure I’ve come up with good answers to either of these questions, yet. But I did find some further confirmation for some of my developing theories: to wit, that corporate voting came after, and in some ways replaced, other forms of municipal oligarchy in Delaware; and that the problem of paying for sewers – and the political economy of suburban housing development they support – has something to do with why Delaware towns have granted corporations the right to vote during the last half-century. 

So let’s dig into Smyrna’s charters, and its night soil, and see what we find. 

~*~

As best as I can determine, corporate voting first appeared in Smyrna when the town was re-incorporated in 1980. Prior to the Reagan era, Smyrna’s municipal charters had focused on more traditional methods of ensuring oligarchy: restricting who could vote using status, wealth, race, and/or gender requirements. 
The earliest version of the municipal charter, in 1817, required that voters be “persons,” who were free, white, male, and owned real estate. Later, in the 1859 charter, the property ownership requirement was dropped in favor of a tax-paying requirement: a poll tax, specifically. An 1897 charter revision removed explicit restrictions based on race (though I have to imagine they were enforced, implicitly), but kept the pay-to-play proviso. The municipal charter approved in 1929 removed restrictions based on gender  – and opened the door to non-resident and possible non-human enfranchisement, by granting “every resident and non-resident taxable of said Town” the right to vote at any special “town meetings” called to decide on extra tax levies. Votes at these meetings were allotted based on the dollars of tax a “taxable” paid, much like Dagsboro charters of the a similar vintage.[3] But though Smyrna had a surprising number of corporations for a tiny Delaware town – the state even chartered one to build the town hall, which is a bit like using a chainsaw to shave, in terms of legal structure overkill – I have not yet found evidence that property-owning local corporations voted in these early 20th-century town meetings.[4]  

Smyrna’s 1980 charter, though, carved out a clear role for corporations in the municipal electorate. Its opening section grants “[e]ach legal entity (whether an individual, partnership, corporation, association, trust, or any other entity capable of holding legal title), owning property in its own name” one vote in annexation elections – though carefully limited such votes to the “one-man, one-vote” principle. But a later section, about special town meetings to levy special taxes, laid out a different principle, re-using the 1929 charter’s language to apportion “every resident and non-resident taxable” a number of votes on the basis of dollars of “taxes paid.” Now that the annexation section had opened the door to non-human “non-resident taxables,” it’s possible this provision was intended to apply applying to corporations, too.[5] 

As seems to be standard with charter revisions in Delaware, no one noticed these sections – at least not in print. Newspaper reports on the 1980 recharter mentioned other features – a bump in council member pay, the lowering of the voting age to 18 – but passed over the enfranchisement of corporations, explicit or implied, entirely. The recharter bill passed the legislature with no incident, or comment. [6] 

That was not the last ratchet toward an incorporated electorate. Smyrna’s 2003 charter expanded and altered corporations’ voting rights. For annexation elections, “any legal entity” owning property is allowed one vote, on a one-man, one-vote” basis; and for bond elections, “any person(s) or artificial entity(s)” [sic]  owning property are “entitled to cast one vote for each separate parcel of real property.” Note that this new process privileges the concept of divisible landed property over raw wealth – and divorces voting from the concept of paying in to the community. It’s the number of land lots you own, not how much tax you contribute to public coffers, that counts. [7]

(Smyrna’s charter-writers finessed this a decade later. The 2012 charter revision scaled back corporate property owner’s voting power: today, owners of “an unfinished subdivision” only get one vote per the entire set of parcels, rather than one vote per empty lot.[8])  

To sum up: after a century of limiting the franchise by property and tax-paying, in 1980 Smyrna dipped its municipal toes in corporate voting, and in 2003 submerged itself to the waist, granting corporations that owned developments and subdivisions – in particular – unprecedented, and frankly odd, voting rights. 

But why? I wasn’t able to find a smoking gun explaining everything in detail, but there is circumstantial evidence that this shift was part of a larger conflict with the county and state governments over the pace, space, and structure of new land development, aka sprawl.

And as with Dagsboro, the debate flowed through the sewers. 

~*~

The facts are these: at the start of 2003, Smyrna, Delaware was wholly in Kent County. Then, in August 2003 – after eight months of very public, and increasingly acrimonious, political conflict that ranged across official town, county, and state venues – the town council approved the annexation of 500 acres of land north of Duck Creek, extending the town boundaries into New Castle County on the basis of a one-vote majority (the mayor broke the tie). [9] 

A few things are interesting about Smyrna’s decision. First: the town annexed this territory over the opposition of the full hierarchy of New Castle County and State of Delaware officials, up to and including the Governor. A few years before, these same authorities arrogated control over local development to themselves – part of a larger effort to manage growth, and suburban sprawl. In the county, this took the form of a new comprehensive plan, with a massive $100 million sewer construction program at its heart – to be paid for using fees levied on sewer hookups to new houses built on unincorporated (i.e. county) land. For the state, Gov. Ruth Ann Minner had created a new bureaucracy for assessing and approving town and county comprehensive plans: an administration known formally as the Office of State Planning Coordination, which developed processes and principles called “Livable Delaware.” If it had worked as intended, “Livable Delaware,” would have allowed political appointees and civil servants to direct development across the state, ensuring a more orderly, healthy, and environmentally-beneficial growth, perhaps – but it also consolidating a large amount of what had been local patronage in state hands. But – importantly – as they implemented these new planning processes, neither state or county had moved to alter all the municipal charters in Delaware that provided towns with annexation powers.[10]

That became a problem because county and state planning centralization came at the cost of municipal control of development – and its associated revenues. This set the table for what Al Mascitti, a News Journal columnist, called in May 2003 an “epic struggle.” The stakes, he said, were “how and where thousands of Delawareans will live” – and where they would pay taxes, and to whom. Mascitti dubbed this brewing fight the “Sewer Wars,” after the expensive, nasty, and difficult-to-build infrastructure that all new developments required.[11] 

~*~

Smyrna’s 2003 annexation proposal was the first test case for these new county and state administrative protocols. And here is the second reason it’s interesting: they all failed. The town successfully annexed the land it wanted, over the opposition of the entire hierarchy of county and state elected officials and civil servants – and faced no legal or political penalty. Livable Delaware was discredited, and New Castle County lost a major source of revenue, setting back planning efforts for decades.

What’s particularly curious about these losses is that they occurred at the same time as the Delaware legislature granted Smyrna a new charter that juiced corporations’ voting rights when it came to annexation and bond and tax issues. The passage of the new charter seems to have added new momentum to the town’s resolve to beat the state. In May, after a state review board rejected the town’s proposal, Smyrna’s part-time mayor, Mark Schaeffer, a full-time real estate professional, said the town would comply with the state’s process. But after the new town charter passed the General Assembly became law in early July, he changed his tune. With Governor Minner’s signature still drying on his town’s new charter, Mayor Schaeffer announced Smyrna would move forward, without the state’s blessing – and build its own sewers. 

In defying the state and county, Schaeffer also deployed new, aggressive arguments in favor of Smyrna’s expansion. First, that “growth” was inevitable – a force of nature that it would be foolish to try and “stonewall.” Second, he argued that municipal annexation was a matter of fundamental law: “We believe all the property owners have certain inherent constitutional rights, and we find it inappropriate to pull the rug out form under then once the process had gotten started.” Schaeffer’s language is notable. It isn’t town residents, or human beings, in whom he thinks fundamental rights inhere: it’s property owners. (Did I mention that Schaeffer was both a realtor and a life-long Republican? Well…) [12]

~*~

Mayoral profession and partisanship aside, what role corporate voters played in all this remains unclear. Delaware newspapers in 2003, preoccupied with promoting the Iraq war and opposing gay marriage, did not note the charter revision process at all, much less its provisions.

But some of realtor-mayor Schaeffer’s comments suggest that business entities advocacy was at least part of the annexation push: “[W]e have property owners expressing an interest in annexing into Smyrna. There also are a couple of businesses that have failing septic systems that have a dire need of our services.” [13] Though the town won the legal and political battles, it’s unclear what Smyrna gained in the end – aside from untreated sewage. The Wilmington newspapers condemned the town’s actions, and said its officials should “be ashamed.” And a decade later, both the Office of State Planning Coordination and New Castle County, each with new staff, still carried enough of a grudge to block Smyrna’s other plans.[14] 

More concretely, Smyrna lost out on $2.9 million in state funds for skipping the planning process. And despite the dollar signs in town officials’ eyes, their promises about jobs and revenue annexation would bring proved illusory: in fact, the annexed land north of Duck Creek is mostly marked “vacant” on the town’s maps today.  It’s possible that the people who made out best were the property owners who sold after the annexation, but before the development bubble deflated. (I am curious whether Schaeffer had any part in those transactions. Immediately after this dustup, he moved to one of the most expensive beach towns in Sussex County, which he now represents as a Sussex county councilor – a position he uses to campaign against sprawl and overdevelopment. [15]

~*~

From a historical perspective, the muddiness of the shit storm in Smyrna is a clear indication that I need to find better, or at least different, sources. Municipal charters are useful for nailing down when the formal definitions of the corporate electorate changed; but they don’t show that system at work. Newspaper coverage, while nicely keyword searchable, has hard limits: if journalists don’t cover something, I can’t find out about it – and journalists rarely noticed, and never investigated, charter revisions.

In the absence of an unexpected public confession of backroom maneuvering, I think my next best set of sources will be minutes of town council meetings, town elections records, and internal town legal memos – which, if they exist, will be accessible only in-person, at municipal record rooms, and may require FOIAs. Too, since this sewer-development-charter change troika seems to be replicated across multiple towns, there may be records of that structure being communicated, and spread, as specialized knowledge. If so, developer’s trade association meetings, or chamber of commerce conferences, may be sites that have produced records of that communication (Is there a YouTube lecture advising home builders to take over local politics with a charter change?). State archives may have useful material: it’s possible the Office of State Planning Coordination recognized its enemies at some point, and drafted a report about them. Finally, if a home builder or real estate company has made internal records available – say, as part of a collection a business history archive, like the Hagley – those corporate materials could shed light on municipal changes.

That’s all for the future, though; for now I plan to keep grinding through towns and cities, and see if my legal history and newspaper search method produces more insights – or at least more sewer cites. 

On to the next municipality! 

————

[0] What can I say? Age changes you, man.

[1] See Ch.3 of my book – Dael A. Norwood, Trading Freedom: How Trade with China Defined Early America, American Beginnings, 1500-1900 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2022) – if you’d like a scholarly account of all the intricacies and political implications of Americans’ opium dealings. For a comprehensive but sharply written overview of the global patterns, see Amitav Ghosh, Smoke and Ashes: Opium’s Hidden Histories (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2024).

[2]  4 Del. Laws, c. 1, “An Act to change the name of Duck-Creek Cross-Roads to Smyrna,” Approved January 16, 1806.

Note: this is not an act of incorporation; just an official change in place name. Smyrna was incorporated first in 1859 (see cites below).

[3] Though officially incorporated in 1817, the legislation has the appearance of a road bill: 5 Del. Laws, c.129, “ An Act to survey, lay out and regulate the streets of Smyrna, and for other purposes,” Approved January 20, 1817.

In 1859 Smyrna was reincorporated, to match village boundaries were surveyed and expanded in 1855; so you have to read both pieces of legislation together for them to make sense.  11 Del. Laws, c 280, “A Further Additional Supplement to the Act Entitled ‘An Act to Survey, Lay Out, and Regulate the Streets of Smyrna,” March 1, 1855;  11 Del. Laws, c. 670, “An Act in Relation to the Town of Smyrna,” Approved February 25, 1859, pp. 772-781; 

The town has been re-incorporated again several times: in 1897, 1929, 1980, and 2003, with mostly minor amendments in between each whole-sale revision of the charter.  20 Del. Laws, c. 537 , “An Act to Reincorporate the Town of Smyrna,” Approved, April 7, 1897, pp. 624-645; 62 Del. Laws, c. 339,  “An Act to Reincorporate the Town of Smyrna,” Approved July 8, 1980; 74 Del. Laws, c. 176, “An Act to Reincorporate the Town of Smyrna,” Approved July 17, 2003.[4] 11 Del.  Laws, c. 121, “An Act to Incorporate the Market House Company of Smyrna,” Approved February 19, 1852. As the name suggests, this corporation also built the “market house” in town.  

[5]  “Alteration of Boundaries,” Section 1(b)(3) and “Special Tax by Town Meeting,” Section 8(a)(2),  62 Del. Laws, c. 339,  “An Act to Reincorporate the Town of Smyrna,” Approved July 8, 1980.

[6] “Smyrna proposes new charter,” The Morning News, Tue, May 6, 1980, p.2; “Legislature,” Morning News, Thu Jun 26, 1980, p.6; “Legislature,” Morning News, Sat Jun 28, 1980, p.4

[7] Sections 3.2.5 and 13.3.3(E)(1) in 74 Del. Laws, c. 176, “An Act to Reincorporate the Town of Smyrna,” Approved July 17, 2003

[8] 78 Del. Laws, c. 339, “An Act to Amend Chapter 176, Volume 74 Laws of Delaware, As Amended, Relating to the Charter of the Town of Smyrna,” Approved July 18, 2012

[9]  Melissa Tyrrell, “Smyrna to annex disputed property: Decision will cost town $2.9 million,” News Journal, August 19, 2003, p. 1, 10.

[10] Melissa Tyrrell, “Panel Advises against Smyrna Growth: Livable Delaware subcommittee recommends town not be allowed to annex 1,200 acres in NCCo,” News Journal, Tue, Apr 29, 2003, B1, B5; Charlotte Hale and Melissa Tyrrell, “South NCCo Revisits disposal of sewage,” News Journal, Sun, May 11, 2003, p.1, 8;  Charlotte Hale, “State group splits on Smyrna growth proposal,” News Journal, May 13, 2003, p.B1, B2;  Patrick Jackson, “Governor Rejects Smyrna Annexation Plan: Mayor says town will comply with state’s decision,” News Journal, Sat, May 17, 2003, pp.1, 5; J. L. Miller, “Smyrna pursues NCCo Annexation: Governor, county are against plan,” News Journal, Wed, July 23, 2003, pp.1, 13; James Merriweather, “Sewers rejected for Smyrna: Kent County to Withhold Service in annexed area,” News Journal, Nov 27, 2003, B1, B5

[11] Al Mascitti, “Struggle over south NCCo Development just starting,” News Journal, Tues, May 6, 2003, p.15.

This column was published a year after Star Wars: Attack of the Clones and two years before Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, which may be why Mascitti was so ready to say “Begun the Sewer Wars have.” 

[12] Patrick Jackson, “Governor Rejects Smyrna Annexation Plan: Mayor says town will comply with state’s decision,” News Journal, Sat, May 17, 2003, pp.1, 5; J. L. Miller, “Smyrna pursues NCCo Annexation: Governor, county are against plan,” News Journal, Wed, July 23, 2003, pp.A1, A13; 

[13] Patrick Jackson, “Governor Rejects Smyrna Annexation Plan: Mayor says town will comply with state’s decision,” News Journal, Sat, May 17, 2003, p. 5

[14] “Our View: Veto of Smyrna’s plan to annex 1,2000 acres was responsible,” News Journal, Fri, May 2, 2003, p.14;  “Our View: Country Shouldn’t Revert to Relying on Septic Systems,” News Journal, Mon, May 5, 2003, p.A10; “Our View: State Must Hold Its Ground Against Defiant Smyrna,” News Journal, Aug 15, 2003, p.14 ; Melissa Nann Burke, “Smyrna, NCCo at odds on growth: New Sewer Service Contentious Issue,” News Journal, Mon. Mar 26, 2012, pp.1,7.

[15] On the town’s great expectations, see: Mark Finney, “The Turning of Smyrna: A Former Farm Town Nestled Next to an Expressway will See its Population Double in Three Years,” News Journal, August 18, 2003, E1, E3