State legislators in Ohio may become the latest to wage war with local governments. Last week, an Ohio House committee passed a bill that would prohibit local government from banning or directly regulating short-term rentals. Not surprisingly, local governments oppose the bill, arguing that it usurps local control and sets the stage for a battle between governments.
Last year, California passed legislation that allows property owners to subdivide their lots for the purpose of increasing housing density. Local governments complained, saying that they, not state legislators, should determine local land-use regulations. Local officials ignore the fact that banning short-term rentals or mandating single-family housing removes a property owner’s freedom to use his property as he deems best.
The argument put forth by local governments is akin to the argument put forth by conservatives for “state’s rights.” In both instances, state or local control is the mantra of the advocates. The advocates want no restrictions on state or local governments. When a higher level of government intervenes, the advocates see it as a battle between governments.
It was appropriate that the federal government outlawed slavery, despite the desires of state governments. The purpose of government—at every level—is the protection of individual rights. When a state government violates individual rights, it is appropriate for the federal government to intervene. When a local government violates individual rights, it is appropriate for the state government (and perhaps the federal government) to intervene.
The advocates of local control and “state’s rights” reject this view of government. They believe that government should be guided by “the will of the people.” That they disagree on which people’s will should be followed is an irrelevant detail.
The advocates of “state’s rights” and local control are not interested in protecting individual rights. Instead, they want to control how individuals live and what they can do with their property.