As another legislative session approaches in Tallahassee, it is once again time to be on guard for legislation that, if enacted, will diminish local control. Local control is so very important because it places decision making as close to the citizen as possible. The U.S. is not a direct democracy but rather a representative democracy where the voters elect representatives to make policy and law in their names. The farther political power is removed from the citizens, the easier it becomes for those representatives to disregard the will of the people. Local control allows the people, through local representatives, to initiate solutions that best fit their localities.

Our entire system of government is one of balance. In our federal structure, no one branch can become too powerful as to be tyrannical. The ongoing struggle between states’ rights and federal supremacy is to limit the power of both. This results in a competitive tension that serves the people best. However, states and their political subdivisions (e.g. municipalities and counties) are different than the relationship between federal and state governments. Local governments only exist as creatures created by state governments.

We often hear of the Law of Unintended Consequences. This happens when the legislature mandates that local government must provide or pay for something without the state giving the locality the necessary funding to accomplish the task. This results in less money available to do what the locality wants or needs to do. Similarly this can occur when the legislature passes a bill that supersedes local control in a particular area. An example is the case of regulating short term rentals. Why is the state involved in this very local matter? By not allowing local control of rentals the local market may suffer economically. If the citizens of Vero, through their local governmental body, pass an ordinance that all leases must be for at least six months, why should the legislature care? If an ordinance such as this goes against the will of the community, then it would not be enacted. If the local elected body insisted, they would most likely lose their seats in the next election. The constitutional rights of any aggrieved party are protected through the courts.

By thwarting a city from exercising local control within their boundaries, the legislature perverts the very idea of democracy. One size does not fit all. The beauty of the American system is that one citizen can make a difference within his/her community. A single person does have the power to exert influence on local government. As a nation and a state, we must stop the concentration of power in the hands of a few…no matter how good their intentions.

I urge the legislature and governor to stop and think before enacting a law or promulgating a regulation which mandates what a locality must do or is prohibited from doing. They need to ask whether this either real or perceived problem is something that can be handled more effectively and efficiently at the local level. Does the state have a compelling reason and/or interest in preventing a county or city from doing something…whether it is raising revenue or passing an ordinance?

“That government is best that governs least” is as valid today as it was when the quote was attributed to Jefferson over 200 years ago. The farther the governmental body is from the electorate, the less it should impose its will on the citizens. C.K. Chesterton wrote in What I Saw In America “The only purely popular government is local, and founded on local knowledge. The citizens can rule the city because they know the city; but it will always be an exceptional sort of citizen who has or claims the right to rule over ten cities…” We all should remember that.