Have you even read the RCW that pertains to the incorporation of cities and towns? Are you familiar with the terms First Class City, Second Class City, and Town? Clearly not, if you think a town with an elected council is still unincorporated, as you seem to imply in the quote above.
Fire districts. School districts. Sewer districts. Parks districts. Hospital districts. All the junior taxing districts. The Cascade Water Alliance and many other municipal corporations formed by inter-local agreement. These are all municipal corporations which are not cities, towns, or counties. Municipal corporation is just another way to say municipality.
Is that a direct enough answer to your question?
The important distinction is public money versus private money: An incorporated organization that collects and spends public money is a municipality, and an incorporated organization that collects and spends private money is not. HOAs collect and spend private money.[/B]
I had unsubscribed from this thread and was not going to comment here again, but I see that some seem to be taking my declaration of being “off this thread” as being open season to attack me.
You have twisted what I said. You should reread it and then reconsider your position after you comprehend that I stated the Townships basically were over-sized neighborhood associations formed in UNINCORPORATED area’s I did not say that
they are unincorporated.
Your going into an explanation of Taxing Districts without showing if they are an elected body possessing legislative ability (rule-making not just taxing authority) and if they possibly could be considered as being municipalities you again have completely avoided answering the question posed to you.
Your example of public money v private money holds weight, but that is a weak argument in general as that simply deals with a difference between taxation and membership dues/assessments, which can even include all non-profit and for profit membership based corporations.
Again, Please explain what the Legislature intends that other municipalities are!
The State Legislature intends municipality(ies) to still mean something or RCW’s such as 43.09.2853
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.09.2853 would not even exist or would not be worded how they are.
I know what the definition of municipality used to be and is why I stated that RCW 9.41.290 “MIGHT” be used. Till someone can show me definitively (without incessant sidesteps) that it no longer could apply, I will be of the opinion that it still “MIGHT” be useful to sideline, delay or otherwise derail deliberations by any Elected Board of Directors of community based organizations possessing rule-making (legislative) ability without taxing authority. Now, isn’t that a highly similar description of both a Town and a Home Owner Association?
RCW 9.41.290 is clear that Cities, Towns and Counties are Municipalities covered under it, but what the other municipalities are is what is in question.
Now if you look at the definition of a Town, it has less than 1,500 residents at the time of its organization and does not operate under Title 35A RCW
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.01.040
As only jt59 and I have even bothered posting links to substantiate what we are saying, I have to conclude that others insisting I am mistaken or have a duty to prove what I am saying are making personal attacks or simply spewing unsubstantiated rhetoric.
When I see an attempt at engaging in a rational discussion I will consider returning to discuss it further, other than that, this is my last post in this thread.
