“Local control” sounds like a conservative principle. But it is not a conservative principle unless it protects liberty. And the groups fighting for the power of cities don’t seek to protect liberty. Typically, they fight for more government control over our lives, at least at the local level.

The Michigan Municipal League is an association that represents governments across the state. The organization is funded by cities, which use tax dollars to pay their league dues. The league then lobbies state lawmakers on their behalf. Sometimes the Mackinac Center and the MML agree on a policy, and sometimes we disagree. That's because support for “local control” does not automatically protect liberty. Sometimes it means municipalities fight back against the state in ways that enhance freedom. It can also mean municipalities fight back against the state to infringe on their residents’ freedom.

As the Mackinac Center’s president Joseph Lehman said, “Liberty, not locality, is the question.”

Many conservatives and Republican lawmakers see local control as a virtue. And it can be – if it means protecting people from an intrusive state or federal government. But those of us who believe in free markets and limited government should understand that local governments can encroach upon citizens’ rights as well. Lobbyists for cities tend to want local officials to have an easier job and more authority.

Consider the following issues in which the Michigan Municipal League has fought for (local) government power and against freedom.

Eminent domain. Governments use this power to seize private property for public purposes. Historically, it has meant a unit of government paying fair market value for private land to build roads, schools, utilities and other core infrastructure provided by or regulated by the public sector.

But that began changing as local governments began seizing private property to use for purely private purposes. Detroit used it to clear homes, businesses, churches and a hospital for General Motors in the Poletown case. Wayne County tried something similar for the Pinnacle Project near the airport. Both were examples of the government seizing private property and forcing people to sell and move when they didn’t want to — all to benefit specific private interests.

In the 1980s, courts upheld Detroit’s use of eminent domain in the Poletown project. But in Pinnacle, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the county’s action was unconstitutional, overturning a decades-old decision. After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of eminent domain for private interests in Kelo in 2005, the citizens of Michigan overwhelmingly voted to rein it in. Today, property owners here have some of the strongest protections in the nation against local government.

The Michigan Municipal League has been a reliable defender of eminent domain. The group filed briefs several times, arguing that municipalities should be able to expansively use that power to seize private property, including in the Hathcock and Adell cases. (The league decried the court opinion in the latter case, saying, "This decision will make acquisitions of property by eminent domain far more cumbersome for municipalities.”) When it comes to local government interests or citizens’ private property rights, MML will choose its members.

Taxes. Taxes affect economic growth. As a rule, low-tax states are growing faster than high-tax states. Because taxation is a core state interest, Michigan sets limits on taxes in the state constitution and through state laws. We limit property tax increases, don’t allow local sales taxes and restrict municipal income taxes.

The Michigan Municipal League opposes those limits. The group consistently bemoans them and argues that the law should be changed to make it much easier for local governments to increase taxes. Increasing taxes and spending makes the government’s job easier. But it is not good for people, so Michigan wisely restricts what municipalities can do.

Licensing and regulation. Michigan used to allow municipalities to impose their own occupational licenses and building codes. Having to deal with a patchwork of regulations was a mess for workers and businesses. There was no good reason for Detroit to have its own plumbing licensing scheme, Petoskey to license fortune tellers or for Lansing to impose its own requirements on auctioneers.

State lawmakers preempted local governments, keeping them from imposing these regulations, protecting citizens’ freedom and enhancing the right to work in Michigan. Opposition came from the Michigan Municipal League, which, absurdly, compared the state’s action to socialism. The power of (local) government is, to the organization, a higher priority than the freedom of individuals.

“Local control” is not a principle by itself; it is a process for administering policy. The real question is whether the government protects the rights of citizens or expands its own power at their expense. On eminent domain, taxation, licensing, regulation, housing and many other issues, the Michigan Municipal League sides with municipal authority regardless of its effect on individual freedom. Lawmakers should recognize that Michigan often needs clear statewide protections that defend residents from government overreach — whether that overreach comes from Lansing, Washington or city hall.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.