Home Rule Rehash

The lights are slowly coming on for the purveyors of local print media when it comes to last weeks SCO ruling on residency ruling. The order to uphold a state law banning residency requirements as term of employment certainly did in the idea of employees having a vested interest in the communities they protect. The real change to the local governance landscape was of course the signal that that the home rule provision in the Ohio constitution was in fact shown the door by the high court.

The majority of the immediate reporting focused on the high fives and histrionics that took place around various city halls and union halls around the state. The police and fire unions had at last exacted a bit of their own justice on the city leaders that have oppressed them for so long. Mayors and managers were apoplectic that the myopic court would render such a deleterious ruling in nonchalant fashion.

While there has been some coverage of the impact on home rule, we are still stuck on the clash of two rival interests described above. I have argued that the provision is now dead and there will be a cascade of impacts on the way localities govern themselves.

For some background on why home rule is now an endangered species I would direct you to a fine piece of reportage by Henry Gomez at the PD. Here the detail behind the court decision and the relevance of Section 34 of the state constitution is parsed. The officials that Gomez quotes reveal the ruling as a gateway drug for power hungry state assemblymen looking to meddle in the affairs of the urban centers of Ohio. First it was predatory lending, gun laws and red light cameras. Next it will be income taxes, employment policies and economic development. The next few years will indeed be indicative of how badly this thing could end up for cities.