IN A STATE WHERE tourism is king, the crown jewel is Charleston, known nationally and internationally for its hospitality and charm. But its economic power doesn’t stop with tourism. State officials say the city was a major selling point last year when they landed their first big fish in years, persuading Vaught-Alenia to bring a $560 million aircraft fuselage plant, and 645 high-paying jobs, to South Carolina.

So you’d think the Legislature would do whatever it could to make sure such an important player in our state’s economy stays healthy. At the least, you’d think lawmakers would make sure they didn’t do anything to hinder Charleston’s ability to remain a vital city.

You’d be wrong. Earlier this month, the Senate passed a bill that would cut off one of the city’s avenues for growth, leaving the city’s residents to pay for services that benefit the burgeoning number of nearby non-residents who don’t pay for them. That, in turn, would hinder the city’s ability to preserve those qualities that make it such an attraction. And unlike previous efforts (all struck down by the Supreme Court), this bill could strangle other cities and towns across the state as well.

At issue is the latest attempt by some residents of James Island to create an “anti-city” that would prevent Charleston from annexing the part of the island that isn’t already part of the city. Current law, designed to cut down on expensive duplication, doesn’t allow a new city to form within five miles of an existing one unless the local population is at least 15,000, more than double what James Island can muster.

The bill would cut the population requirement to 7,000. And to make sure James Island can get to 7,000, it allows these new cities to essentially leapfrog over any government-owned roads, waterways or other land inside an already-existing city.

This proposal makes Columbia’s shoestring annexation of Columbiana mall look like a reasonable, orderly expansion. Imagine the town of Forest Acres leapfrogging across Fort Jackson — which is part of the city of Columbia — and taking in Lower Richland, all the way over to Eastover, and you get an idea of how this could work. It turns the notion of what a “city” is on its head.

That may be fine with the folks on James Island, who want no part of any city, but it’s not fine public policy.

This year’s legislation does have one redeeming quality, which is a drastic improvement from previous efforts: It prevents areas from incorporating unless they provide police protection and at least three other municipal services, such as solid waste collection, zoning, building code enforcement and parks and recreation. But the bill creates a legislative committee to sit in judgment of the proposed municipalities, as if legislators don’t already do far too much interfering with how local elected officials run their localities.

We would love to see the state outlaw the anti-cities, which exist in name only. They limit real cities’ ability to match up their boundaries to the urbanized populations that benefit from their services, and they also siphon off state “aid to subdivision” funds and county local option sales tax funds, which are supposed to go to actual cities to help them provide services to residents. But if the only way to accomplish that is to also make it easier to balkanize our state with redundant little cities, then it’s not worth the price. We need to help make our existing cities stronger, not strangle them with redundant new entities.