GOP effort aims to roll back local authority

Bill would further restrict emergency powers related to pandemic

TALLAHASSEE — Fights over powers of local governments are common in the Capitol, but this year the experience of the COVID19 pandemic is playing a central role in debates over what cities and counties should be able to do.

Gov. Ron DeSantis issued an executive order last week erasing all fines and fees issued by cities and counties related to COVID19 restriction violations, upsetting South Florida officials who regard it as undermining “common sense” restrictions such as mask mandates.

Now lawmakers are moving forward with a bill to further restrict the emergency powers of local government. The bill, SB

1924, would put the burden of proof on the city or county to justify the emergency restrictions and ensure it’s done in the least restrictive way possible. It would end all emergency orders after 10 days if the city or county commission doesn’t vote to extend them.

“I just don’t know why we’re treading on local government,” said Sen. Tina Polsky, D-Boca Raton.

Sen. Manny Diaz, R-Miami, countered that his bill would still allow mayors and local governments to impose curfews and other restrictions during an emergency, it would just require the approval of the entire county or city commission to extend it after 10 days.

“The thought this is removing the home rule — it’s not,” Diaz said. “It’s saying the power should not lie with one individual.”

But even that leeway is still too restrictive, Polsky said, citing the experience of Hurricane Matthew, when the city hall building of Lynn Haven and other Panhandle towns were destroyed, preventing in-person meetings in the immediate aftermath.

“If the pandemic has taught us anything is that we need to be flexible and this legislation is anything but flexible,” Polsky said.

The bill passed 6-3 along party lines with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. It was one of four bills curtailing local government powers that passed through the Senate Community Affairs Committee on Tuesday.

Two bills from Sen. Travis Hutson, R-St. Augustine, would prevent local governments from banning new gas stations (SB 856), and from restricting the type of energy source used by homeowners (SB 1128).

Both bills passed despite the concerns of environmentalists and Democrats who see the measure as an obstacle for cities trying to combat climate change.

“What is the problem with cities having a preference toward green energy?” said Sen. Janet Cruz, D-Tampa.

Hutson said he prefers local governments use incentives to make cleaner energy sources cheaper and more attractive to consumers, rather than set deadlines for eliminating fossil fuels in the next 20 years.

“I applaud them for trying to get to clean and green energy,” Hutson said. “I don’t think cities in trying to get there should effectively or try to ban what consumers want. I think it should be more of a consumer choice model.”

But while SB 856, the bill banning prohibitions on gas stations, passed along party lines, the bill preempting restrictions on natural gas passed unanimously, with Cruz voting for the bill despite reservations.

Another bill, SB 1884, designed to strengthen penalties for cities that pass gun control laws in violation of the existing law that preempts firearm regulation to the state, also passed through the committee on a 6-3 party-line vote.

The bill would grant attorney fees to people who bring a lawsuit against a municipality for having a written or unwritten policy restricting firearms, even if the city or county rescinds its policy.

Bill sponsor Sen. Ray Rodrigues, R-Estero, said cities were retreating from policies in violation of the law after a lawsuit was brought, but courts weren’t granting attorney fees to the plaintiffs. When asked by Cruz for specific examples of that happening, Rodrigues said he’d have to follow up with her later.

Polsky criticized the bill as likely to encourage harassing lawsuits against cities because it would make it so easy to win a case because of a vague “unwritten” policy. Rodrigues said it should reduce the number of lawsuits by pushing cities and counties from enacting policies that violate the law.

“This will decrease litigation because if local governments know that if they violate the rights of an individual there will be a cost associated with that,” Rodrigues said. “They’ll be less likely to violate in the future.”