OPINION: Local control and the balance of power

One of the most conservative ideas in government is also one of the simplest: decisions should be made as close to the people as reasonably possible.

Washington shouldn’t be deciding what can be handled by Idaho. Boise shouldn’t be deciding what can be handled by Coeur d’Alene, Hayden, or Post Falls. And city councils shouldn’t wander into matters that properly belong to state or federal government.

In other words: stay in your lane.

But local control is easiest to support when local government reaches the outcome we want. When it doesn’t, the temptation is to look to a higher level of government to step in.

That’s where state preemption enters the picture.

Senate Bill 1352, which narrowly passed this year, is a good example. It sets statewide rules for starter-home developments and limits some of the restrictions cities and counties can place on them.

Supporters make a legitimate argument. Housing affordability is a statewide problem, and local zoning rules can restrict supply, add costs, and make development more difficult.

Opponents raise an equally legitimate question: How much authority over distinctly local land-use decisions should Boise take away from communities?

That question is worth considering, particularly for conservatives who champion local control. It becomes much harder to defend when local government reaches an outcome we don’t like. The natural temptation is to go over its head; the political equivalent of, “I’d like to speak to management.”

Lose at the city council? Ask the Legislature to change it. Lose at the Legislature? File a lawsuit.

Sometimes that is entirely appropriate. Courts determine whether government has acted lawfully and protected constitutional rights. State government also has a legitimate role when an issue requires statewide consistency.

But representative government provides another remedy for bad local decisions: elections. Citizens can organize, attend meetings, testify, recruit candidates, and vote elected officials out of office. It may be slower, messier, and more frustrating, but it is self-government at its most grassroots.

And sometimes, after all of that, we still don’t get our way.

Not every political loss means the system failed. Sometimes our neighbors look at the same facts from their perspective and reach another conclusion, and they may not be wrong.

That is pluralism: we all get a voice, and we won’t always agree. A healthy republic makes room for different ideas and sometimes outcomes we don’t like. Authoritarianism is the opposite: power is concentrated at the top, and disagreement is pushed aside.

So when we’re tempted to seek a higher authority to reverse an outcome, a fair question is: Are we defending a principle, or simply trying to get our way? Otherwise, “local control” can quickly become “local control as long as my side is winning.”

To be clear, local government doesn’t always get it right. There are decisions the Legislature or courts legitimately need to address. But not every disagreement requires a lobbyist or attorney.

Sometimes the answer is to organize better and try again. Other times, we accept that in a free society we won’t always get everything we want. Wisdom is knowing what is worth fighting for and when to be at peace with the outcome.

That isn’t weakness. It’s part of the privilege of living in a country where we all have the same right to participate in self-government.

That’s the Idaho way.

• • •

Becky Funk is a member of North Idaho Republicans and former Legislative District 4 Republican Chair.