What home rule? Plain Dealer editorial, Sunday December 17, 2006

[Kolesar]

http://www.cleveland.com/editorials/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1166261537183420.xml&coll=2

...edited & annotated...

Home rule was considered so fundamental that in 1912, it was enshrined in Article 18 of the Ohio Constitution. For most of the next nine decades, some of its most vehement supporters were Republicans who zealously insisted that the best decisions were those made closest to the people affected by them.

But in recent years, that has changed dramatically. In 2002, a General Assembly that had consistently ignored reports of urban neighborhoods devastated by unscrupulous lenders arose from its slumber long enough to forbid cities from regulating those abuses. Then it went back to sleep for four years before passing its own predatory-lending controls. Meanwhile, the lists of foreclosures in places such as Cleveland and Dayton grew longer, the cancer eating away at their neighborhoods became more virulent.

In this year alone, the legislature has voted to strip municipalities' ability to set residency requirements for public employees, to overturn more than 80 local gun ordinances and to render electronic traffic enforcement toothless. It rolled a ban on municipal lawsuits against makers of lead paint into a grab-bag assault on consumer rights. It has considered - and has fortunately tabled for now - a constitutional amendment that would impose a statewide definition of blight for eminent-domain actions.

Participating in the assault upon the taxpayers have been many Greater Cleveland legislators. We will remember them next time they come asking for this newspaper's support.

Not to be paranoid, but at times this legislature seems to believe it exists to thwart the desires of urban Ohio - especially when they run counter to those of special interests that lawmakers hold dear. (Do any strident-grassroots-cum-industry-shill-organizations come to mind? --TBA) They can cloak their actions in high-minded rhetoric about property rights or personal freedom all they like. Dictating, for instance, how communities enforce their own traffic laws reeks of distrust and disregard for local decision-making.

Even worse, other branches of state government have given aid and comfort to this assault on local autonomy. Gov. Bob Taft, repaying an old debt to public employee unions, signed the ban on residency laws even though more than 120 cities and villages of all sizes and in every corner of the state had imposed such requirements. Just last month, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down Cleveland's suit in defense of its predatory-lending law. Writing for the anti-city majority, Justice Terrence O'Donnell set the bar for legislative supremacy so low as to render home rule almost meaningless. By O'Donnell's standards, the General Assembly probably can wipe out any local initiative.

[geiger]

1. there is such a thing as healthy paranoia, esp. in politics

[Kolesar]

2. They stole my mojo

The Plain Dealer is obviously reading my posts to find their material:

The last paragraph reinforces my point that the Ohio government is being run by small-town conservatives who hate urban Ohio.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=172x21519

[mosin]

3. Home rule inconsistency

They can cloak their actions in high-minded rhetoric about property rights or personal freedom all they like. Dictating, for instance, how communities enforce their own traffic laws reeks of distrust and disregard for local decision-making.

I don't know anyone who has a 100% consistent opinion on home rule. In every case, with every person I've talked to, loyalty to home rule depends on which side of an issue the person is on. If you're winning at the state level, you favor preemption. If you're winning at the local level, you favor home rule. I admit to being no different.

At least in two regards, I believe that distrust and disregard for local decision-making is well-earned. Automated red-light cameras are rife for abuse by municipalities. I have no problem with the state government protecting civil liberties by restricting their use.

Likewise, local governments in Ohio have for years been ignoring the right to bear arms for defense and security recognized in the Ohio constitution. The time was long overdue for Ohio to become the 43rd state to preempt local infringements on that right.

In other areas, such as the prohibition of residency requirements for city employees and preemption of local predatory lending ordinances, I opposed the state mandates.

Even the Plain Dealer is inconsistent. It supports HB9 which imposes tough new public records requirements on municipalities (i.e., tells them how to manage and distribute information). How is that not an infringement on home rule?

Answer: It is. It's just one that the Plain Dealer supports.