Home rule bill would strip local leaders’ power.

Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran vowed to “shake up the system” this week in a rousing speech to kick off the 2017 legislative session. That’s an understatement in at least one critical context, where the speaker is backing legislation that would up the system.

Under House Bill 17, sponsored by Palm Bay Republican Randy Fine, leaders elected locally would be stripped of their longstanding and fundamental authority to regulate businesses operating within their boundaries, unless granted the right to do so in specific cases by legislators. Existing local regulations would expire in mid-2020, unless local leaders acted first to reduce or repeal them.

Passage of the bill would roll back the clock in Florida 50 years, before the state constitution was amended in 1968 to establish home rule for local governments. The amendment granted them “broad authority to legislate on any matter that is not inconsistent with federal or state law,” according to legislative analysts.

The logic behind the amendment remains sound: With few exceptions, local leaders are in the best position to set local policy. They live and work in the communities where those policies apply. They interact face-to-face and day-to-day with the people and businesses that are affected. They have a personal stake in the success or failure of those policies. They are the most accessible — and most directly accountable — level of government.

Before home rule was enshrined in the Florida Constitution, it was not unusual for the Legislature to consider thousands of bills a year dealing with local issues. The annual total of those local bills has declined to a few dozen, and that’s a good thing. It makes far more sense for legislators to devote their limited time during their regular session each year — normally just 60 days — to statewide issues, instead of micromanaging municipalities.

Yet HB 17 would transfer significant power from local to state leaders. Citizens or businesses seeking changes in regulatory policy would have to join the parade of supplicants in Tallahassee, instead of taking up the issue with their local leaders at city hall or the county courthouse. This would be especially hard on small businesses that lack the resources, time and know-how to navigate the corridors of power in the state capital.

Obviously, the benefit of any local business regulation needs to be carefully balanced by local leaders against the burden it would impose. Specific mandates on wages or benefits might be ill-advised.

But HB 17 could preclude a wide range of local initiatives dealing with public health, safety, rights and quality of life. While local leaders are still pondering the ramifications of the legislative language, ordinances they consider at risk include anti-discrimination rules for LGBT citizens, local noise controls, environmental protections, limits on locations for medical marijuana dispensaries and adult entertainment restrictions.

In recent years, the Legislature has pre-empted local regulations in some specific areas, such as for ordinances dealing with guns. Last year lawmakers tried, but failed, to block any local controls on fracking. These efforts are unwelcome, but they’re targeted strikes on home rule. Fine’s bill is a carpet bombing.

A top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to regulation is especially ill-suited for Florida, one of the nation’s most geographically and culturally diverse states. Why operate under the assumption that a policy that’s a good fit for rural North Florida should apply in downtown Miami?

Legislators hate it when they get big-footed on issues by Washington, D.C. Why would they think it’s OK to turn around and do the same thing to local governments?

A bill to block local business regulations would marginalize local governments.

A top-down approach to policy makes little sense in a state as diverse as Florida.