Licensed to non-actual locations

[Paul Hopfgarten]

That's odd that a "Home Rule" State like MA can abolish a town at will..

In NH, the state is the responsible party for creating towns, but I believe
the citizens would be the party to "dissolve" a town. And we don't have Home
Rule.

-Paul Hopfgarten
-Derry NH (NH State Rep, FWIW)

-----Original Message-----
From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org
[mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of
Garrett Wollman
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:58 AM
To: A. Joseph Ross
Cc: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org
Subject: Re: Licensed to non-actual locations

<<On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:12:25 -0500, "A. Joseph Ross"
<joe@attorneyross.com> said:

> That certainly is true in Massachusetts.  When four towns were 
> abolished to create the Quabbin Reservoir in the 1930s, their 
> territory was annexed to surrounding towns.

Of course, that is a "can't happen" condition in many other states,
where the state constitution places even more restrictions on special
legislation than the Massachusetts constitution does.  (In
Massachusetts, the General Court can still abolish a town at will, if
I read the Home Rule Amendment correctly; in many other states, this
can only be done with the consent of the voters.)

Canada has seen quite a bit of this with the forcible amalgamation of
cities, in Quebec and Ontario particularly.  I don't know if the CRTC
ever officially ruled on whether amalgamation automatically changed
the stations' communities of license, or if stations must actually
apply for the change.  (Not that they ever identify anyway.)

-GAWollman