Current Conditions
26°F - SUNNY
Courthouse calm helps doom home rule
Lancaster New Era
Published: Nov 05, 2008
11:35 EST
Lancaster
By CHAD UMBLE, Staff Writer
In 2006, when a home rule charter was first being publicly discussed, squabbles and controversies frequently bogged down the Lancaster County Commissioners, and the moment seemed ripe for a change.

But in the two years between November 2006 — when 51 percent of voters approved a study of home rule — and Tuesday, a lot changed.

And those changes helped spell defeat for the proposed home rule charter, which Lancaster County voters rejected Tuesday by a margin of 63 to 37 percent.

G. Terry Madonna, the director of Franklin & Marshall College's Center for Politics and Public Affairs, said since home rule gained momentum because of controversies with former commissioners, the lack of bickering among the current commissioners made change seem unnecessary.

"The county leaders seem to be harmonious. That is not a recipe for home rule to pass," Madonna said.

The proposed home rule charter would have, among other things, added two county commissioners, shuffled some county offices and created an option for ballot initiatives.

In July, the Republican Committee of Lancaster County came out against the proposed home rule charter, opposition that severely narrowed the proposal's chance of success.

"I think the advocates of home rule had to face a united — for the most part — Republican party and a party apparatus that was not for it. And, they simply couldn't overcome that problem," Madonna said.

Leading up to Tuesday's voting, the local GOP campaigned actively against the plan, warning about high taxes and bigger government with the new charter.
Related Topics

Greg Sahd, who served on the 11-member home rule commission but was among its three members who voted against the group's proposal, said voters recognized the proposal's ramifications.

"The people understood it all too well. It was a proposed government that in the end was not as good as what we have now, in terms of economy and accountability," he said.

Sahd cheered the charter's defeat, saying, "I'm delighted. No question about it we dodged a bullet."

This morning, Tom Baldrige, president of the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce & Industry, reflected on the end of a long process that the business group launched in June 2006 and campaigned for ahead of Tuesday's vote.

"Obviously I'm disappointed. But it is nonetheless clear the voters have spoken, and I think it is now very important to get on with the business of county government and make sure the county is working as effectively and efficiently as possible," he said.

Baldridge said he thought voters were likely confused by the complexity of the charter, opting to vote against it if they didn't understand it.

Home rule allows local governments to craft a government structure different from the one dictated by the state.

In 1972, a home rule commission in Lancaster County wrote a charter that replaced the county's three commissioners with a county executive and a county legislature that included district and at-large representatives. A lawsuit derailed that effort on a technicality.

Madonna was a Lancaster County commissioner as that first home rule commission was being considered. Now, with the defeat of a second attempt, Madonna said home rule isn't likely to get a third chance here.

"With that decisive defeat? I don't think so," he said.


Staff writer Chad Umble can be reached at cumble@LNPnews.com

Recent Posts
Showing 5 most recent comments out of 21 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article
QUOTE (Shirley U Geste @ Nov 7 2008, 10:27 PM)
Go out to Park City, Downtown Lancaster and some local pubs and ask 500 to 1000 people what they knew about home rule. Polls were done and a large percentage claimed they new very little. Despite the fact that public meetings were held. Websites contained complete infomation of those meetings and the actual charter. Weeks of newspaper articles. Were they magically informed the last week or two? Of course not. They heard the magic words bigger government and higher taxes and made their decision.

The burden was on the GSC and the Chamber to educate folks as to why this urgent, radical change was needed. You spent all of the money you raised to do radio and tv. You were advertising - when you should have been educating.

The newspapers, two of which were very pro home rule, had editorials and columns trying to make your case while slamming the other side.

Your team took the voters for granted - your team considered the voters to be 'lemmings' only you expected them to follow your pied piper tune of more local control. You underestimated them.

We understood charter proposal all too well
Sam Jones Lancaster Letters to the Editor

Editor, New Era:

Having studied the home-rule plan, at least some of us voted against it not because we did not understand its provisions but because we, in fact, did!

So, it's insulting that its defeat is blamed on the ignorance of the voters instead of on the problems of the proposal.

Trust me, we'll remember this the next time the Chamber of Commerce and the Realtors try to foist this kind of thing on us.

3DoorsDown
I hate to point out something that should be obvious but here it is anyway.

The home rule STUDY passed by only 51% - not exactly a huge number. That people - who voted to study - then voted against what they came up with represent a relatively small number should not come as a big surprise.

rh
RonHarper
QUOTE (RonHarper @ Nov 8 2008, 01:13 PM)
I hate to point out something that should be obvious but here it is anyway.

The home rule STUDY passed by only 51% - not exactly a huge number. That people - who voted to study - then voted against what they came up with represent a relatively small number should not come as a big surprise.

rh

It is nice to see you back, Ron. I missed ya!
Bigmaclender2
QUOTE (RonHarper @ Nov 8 2008, 02:13 PM)
I hate to point out something that should be obvious but here it is anyway.

The home rule STUDY passed by only 51% - not exactly a huge number. That people - who voted to study - then voted against what they came up with represent a relatively small number should not come as a big surprise.

rh


The vote to approve the study in 2006
65,696 YES 51%
62,736 NO 49%
128,432

The vote to reject the charter in 2008

124,858 NO 63%
74,156 YES 37%
199,014

Almost as many people voted NO in 2008 as voted YES or NO in 2006.

62,000 more people voted NO in 2008 as voted NO in 2006.
8,500 more people voted YES in 2008 as voted YES in 2006.

So, there were 53,500 additional NO votes over additional YES votes.

Of the 70,500 new votes on this issue in 2008 versus 2006 - 88% voted NO. 12% voted YES.
3DoorsDown
I am of course familiar with the numbers. I believe that the primary yes/no ratio could have been extrapolated onto the entire electorate with accurate results.

My point is that the vote to STUDY the government barely passed. The fact that there were less than a 15% spread between the two votes is hardly a surprise or worth crowing about.

In other words - big deal!

rh
RonHarper
Top Ads