|
|
|
Ohio Municipal League email:
Also please include a phone number and/or address for instances when we need
further contact with you. Please type
“OML Inquiry” in subject line so that we can identify e-mails picked up as spam. |
December 8, 2004 The Honorable Bob Taft Dear Governor Taft: As the representative of municipal governments in Ohio the Ohio Municipal League respectfully requests that you veto Sub. H.B. 175. While there are several reasons why the State should not enact a “so called” uniform residential building code, there are provisions in Sub. H. B. 175 that cry out for a veto. Our explanation of these reasons will be as clear and succinct as possible and are set out below: 1. The Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 3 grants police power to Ohio municipalities if the local exercise of police does not “conflict” with the state's exercise of police power as enacted by a “general law”. Sub. H.B. 175 provides a residential building code administered by the Ohio Board of Building Standards. Sub H.B. 175 purports “- - - not to prevent a local government” (municipalities included) “from adopting additional regulations governing residential structures that do not conflict (emphasis added) with the state residential building code if the procedures in division (C) of this section are followed.” Division (C) (1) (a) provides that the Board shall determine if: (1) the local exercise of police power conflicts with the state's exercise of its police power, and (2) whether the local regulation is necessary to protect the public health or safety of the persons within the local government' jurisdiction. If the Board determines that a conflict exists between the local regulation and the state regulation or that the regulation is not necessary to protect the public health or safety of the persons with the local government's jurisdiction, the regulation is invalid. This is clearly an effort to vest rule making power (i.e. law-making power) and the exercise of judicial powers in the same agency, the Board of Building Standards. This is a clear invasion by the General Assembly of judicial powers, and thus unconstitutional. We would note that the Board is often greatly influenced, if not dominated, by building industry representatives, and local governments often face a bias in that venue. The self-serving provisions of Section 5 of the bill that it is the intent of the General Assembly to enact a “general law”, and that “matters of statewide concern are involved” are clear efforts to defeat the home rule powers of municipal governments under Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution. In other words the General Assembly has tried to“preempt” the ability of municipalities to protect their citizens by the passage of Sub. H.B. 175. The case law is clear that the test is conflict not preemption, no matter how preemption is packaged. 2. One urban area is unlike another. Individual municipalities within an urban area do not wish to be relegated to a single standard selected by the State of Ohio, which may be a standard judged too low to protect the values of the community and the lives of their citizens and firefighters. Obviously rural areas and farm residences are unlike city environs. Is it wise to impose a single standard for all of Ohio, a standard that often is influenced greatly by those who profit from lesser regulations? We think not. We urge you to veto Sub. H.B. 175. Respectfully ,
Susan J.
Cave
cc: Jon Allison |
