| Home | Resources | News/Media | Events | Get Involved | Contribute | About Us | Archives | Students |
Advertiser editorial: Need for home rule shown again
Montgomery Advertiser
June 25, 2010
In a land of common-sense governance, two neighboring municipalities with disputes over boundaries and tax collections could work out a mutually acceptable arrangement and get on with business. After all, it's no concern of any other entity. It's certainly not the concern of the state Legislature.
But Alabama is the land of no-sense governance, of a cumbersome constitution that impedes responsive local government, of minimal home rule that makes addressing local issues an absurdly complicated process filled with potential obstacles to resolving even simple matters.
It's a ridiculous way to operate, and a fine example of it is found in the dispute between Montgomery and Pike Road that is the subject of a court hearing today.
Just a few months ago, matters looked promising. Mayors Todd Strange of Montgomery and Gordon Stone of Pike Road had developed a reasonable compromise that settled the central issues. As with all compromises, it was not perfect and did not enjoy universal support, but it was a sensible way to proceed.
Except that the municipalities really couldn't proceed. Without full home rule, they couldn't put the compromise in place. They had to seek passage of local legislation from the Legislature. A four-bill package was written, but the process soon fell apart and with it the prospects of moving ahead with the timely settlement of the disputes.
The flaws of such a system of governance are glaring. It is nothing short of crazy to operate in such a way. The involvement of the Legislature in local governing matters serves no valid purpose.
Under the best of circumstances, local legislation is an iffy proposition. Hundreds of bills of every description and every degree of merit get caught in legislative logjams every year and fail to pass.
It takes the unanimous support of a county's legislative delegation to move a local bill. If any member, for any reason, decides to oppose it, the bill is dead, no matter how important it may be to the local governing body involved.
Here's an example. In the case of this package, Rep. Alvin Holmes opposed the bill because he wanted Strange to return a fire suppression truck to the Rosa L. Parks Avenue fire station and to change the way the city appoints municipal court judges. None of this, of course, had anything at all to do with the legislation itself.
Instead of a compromise that both municipalities could live with, the result of all this is the least desirable outcome -- a return to court. Government ought to work better than this, but it won't -- indeed can't -- as long as home rule is so restricted that two local governments cannot implement agreements they willingly reach with each other.