Home Rule Goes Poof!

The home rule provision of the Ohio Constitution was laid to rest today by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Today it's residency requirements tomorrow it's income tax rates or something else. The 5-2 ruling upholding a State law barring the residency requirements was to the delight of police and fire unions and the dismay of city officials all over Ohio.

I guess this decision was inevitable. The State Supremes and the General Assembly have been hostile towards the very precept of local control of governance when it comes to large cities in the north end of the state.

Here are some points on the now defunct residency requirements and a sort of postmortem on our dear friend home rule.

Residency Lost

Police unions in particular are happy about the overturn of the requirements in Akron and Cleveland. I suspect Cleveland is going to be worse off than Akron or Lima. The Cleveland Police Department is already redeploying as a hired mercenary force at this hour. I hear that the County Land Bank is willing to buy up all the vacated homes left by police and fire guys fleeing Cleveland proper.

Many will choose to leave their respective cities and live elsewhere.
Still there are plenty of people who will stay in Akron or Cleveland
for a variety of reasons. What makes a community livable and a desirable to live in? Some would say it's all about the schools. Safety and decent neighborhoods are just as or more important. Of course the State is getting to work on fixing school funding so that will negate the school system variable soon enough.

There is still a need to get public safety employees especially police forces to be cognizant of the community vibe so to speak. The residency requirement was sort of a forced fit in trying to attain that end although it was also an assurance to city finance directors of a certain level of captive income tax revenue. It was never perfect and has bred some animosity between the rank and file and city management. This pervasive tension was probably counter productive to the achieving the better effective policing and healthy relations with the community. Akron's steps to strengthen community relations with a citizen review committee can be a positive force in offsetting the lost residency requirement.

I suspect the decision will be a morale booster for public safety forces. The eradication of a perceived hardship could renew the outlook a lot of public safety workers, I hope. There's always something to complain about in ANY line of work (present company included) but this change may translate into better dialogue and respect between both sides.

Wither Home Rule

Here is an aphorism that I just made up, "Everyone likes activist judges
when the decision falls on their side of the policy argument". This one ruling has changed the local governance landscape. The majority's dependence on Section 34, Article II in particular will leave the door open for more home rule erosion.

What is the future of home rule now that Ohio's merry band of Republican justices have struck such a harmful blow to the provision? Will this ruling impact the way cities govern themselves in other areas besides employment practices? How does a mayor or city council evaluate a policy initiative that would seemingly rely on the once safe harbor of home rule?

I think going forward there will be a chilling effect on local governance. One that could inhibit local leaders from thinking boldly when it comes to addressing challenges (think red light cameras and gun ordinances).

With the residency card pulled from the deck, cities may want to find ways to incentivize employees to live in city limits. There are no doubt numerous carrots that could be offered as a way to entice people to remain residents. As a mayor faced with eroding home rule power do you even bother having staff evaluate and assemble policies that could be wiped out by a legal opinion? Who's to say income tax or property tax abatement offered as an enticement to keep resident employees aren't on shaky legal ground now?

Dead Idea or Not?

I just finished reading The Tyranny of Dead Ideas by Matt Miller and think his book speaks to the death of the residency requirement. A dead idea is a conventional wisdom that has reached the end of it's useful life of determining policy outcomes. Perhaps when residency requirements are looked at in conjunction on with regionalism, tax sharing and other 21st trends in local governance their shelf life looks past due.

That may be the case for a policy like residency requirement that had limited application and mixed results. My fear is that home rule is next up for elimination and that would not be good.