I finally got around to watching The Direction’s videocast posted last week. Ken spent most of the time in this 36 minute show talking about the Dillon Rule. He calls it a “red herring” and takes to task those who think the rule should be abolished.
I fully expected the standard answer for supporting the Dillon Rule (that it is good for businesses) to be a part of his argument but instead, he offered up some examples of legislation that could be introduced. The thing is that every single example that he gave, such as allowing localities the ability to tax, is, in fact, a loosening of the Dillon Rule!
A much easier answer? Do away with the Dillon Rule.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I’m just noticing that when it comes to states limiting localities, you want the Dillon rule thrown out, but when it comes to the federal government limiting the states, you hit the brakes and ask for examples, meaning that you have no problem with federal control of states depending on the issue, but state control of cities needs to go.
By the way, I’m not even getting into your use of the word “paternalistic” as a negative thing as if being fatherly is bad.
Nope.You’re talking in circles, trying to pin me on something that I have offered no opinion on. I said specifically that I know more about the Dillon Rule than I do about federal government restrictions on states. If you are not talking about states’ rights, which you say you are not, then I have no clue about how the federal government infringes on the states.
It is not a matter of hitting the brakes. It is a matter of not knowing to what you refer.
I said “for argument’s sake.” Just thought it would be an interesting way to explore your philosophies.
I’m a CPA. We don’t do philosophies 🙂 Don’t you know everything has a right and a wrong answer? 😆
Again, the Dillon Rule in and of itself has nothing to do with the extent of state control over a locality. It is only the manner in which that control is expressed.
The statutes referred to above would not be invalid. In fact, those expressed prohibitions are the essence of home rule; that is how the state exerts control over the locality.
Look at it in this manner: with regard to the relationship of local governments to the state, there are two separate issues. One is the amount of discretion a state desires to give localities; after all, local governments are creations of the state government. The other question is one of how that control is expressed — in other words, Dillon Rule versus home rule. You can have weak localities in Dillon Rule and home rule states; likewise you can have strong localities in Dillon Rule or home rule states.
The point I have been trying to make is that the power of localities is not a direct function of the Dillon Rule. Now, if one were to propose conversion to home rule with no additional prohibitions on localities (something that I believe is unlikely), then yes, localities would be much more powerful. But, under home rule, localities could be just as restricted as they are today.