Who’s Really in Charge?

Today is the first day of the 2026 Florida Legislative session. I want to remind you of what’s at stake every year as 160 legislators descend into Tallahassee.

If you want to understand the current state of politics in Florida, start by picturing a very lopsided tug-of-war; local elected officials and communities on one end and Tallahassee on the other. Lately, it feels like Tallahassee’s grip is getting stronger, and our local voices are slipping away.

Why? It’s a mix of big money, unchecked political power, and the never-ending debate over who knows best - the citizens living in our neighborhoods or the ones making laws hundreds of miles away.

This is a debate about the future of our communities, our homes, and the way we solve the problems that matter most to Floridians. What happened to the small government and the home rule that was promised to us over 50 years ago?

Home rule is/was the idea that decisions should be made as close to the people as possible. Your county commissioners and city council members aren’t just names on a ballot - they’re your fellow residents you bump into at Publix, the ones who know which roads flood after a storm and which neighborhoods need a new park. Local control means policies shaped by people who actually live with the consequences.

When local governments have control, communities get a direct say in shaping the rules that affect their daily lives. It’s not just about flooding and schools and zoning. It’s about preserving the very character and quality of life that makes all 67 Florida counties and 411 cites unique.

But recently, Tallahassee has been flexing its muscles. State preemptions – the laws that override local decisions from afar - are on the rise.

Due to the recent top-down repudiation of the formally-conservative belief in limited government and free markets, we’re seeing more preemptions and increased government control over every aspect of our lives – from how, and who, we hire to what color we paint our crosswalks to whether we can fund our needed nonprofits (HB605). They’re often done in direct opposition to the very communities they should be protecting and taking guidance from. Frequently, they’re done entirely for political and campaign purposes.

Take SB180 from last year (Substack: Burdensomely Vague Intentions). It started as a way to manage post-storm emergencies, but the final version included language that stifled local autonomy around land use and development. And it’s certainly not an isolated case.

For the 2026 session, there is a bill filed to remove all local control of water quality, pollution and environmental protections (HB479 / SB718). This year’s discussion on property taxes could be the biggest preemption of them all as it risks shifting all budgetary funds to the state. This will inevitably turn over all policy and growth decisions to Tallahassee as a bargaining chip - or more likely, a demand - for release of local funds for your critical services. (Substack: Florida’s Best Worst Option)

Even when Tallahassee claims to acknowledge a problem with a preemption, there is little most lawmakers will do to rectify it for their citizens. In 2026, SB840 has been filed (thank you Senator DiCeglie) to fix the terrible and misguided aspects of SB180. But, even with the incredible outcry from all corners of our state, not a single member of the Florida House would file an identical companion bill to help resolve the issues they claimed they wanted to fix while they were back home.

This just goes to show that when home rule is lost, it’s very difficult to ever get it back.

So what’s driving this surge in state control? I pin it on three factors.

1. Money in Politics

Since Citizens United, campaign cash has flooded the system. Big donors - especially those with statewide business interests - want uniform rules. More specifically, they want THEIR rules set uniformly. For local communities, it often means losing the ability to protect what matters most, like environmental safeguards or neighborhood character. Elected officials tend to prioritize policies that conveniently align with their donors. These policies, often involving preemptions, bypass local consensus and reflect the interests of those writing the checks, not the people living in the neighborhoods.

2. The Supermajority Effect

History shows that it’s never good for one party - either party - to have total control at any level of government. It’s even worse when it’s unfettered control that has no checks and balances. Today’s political supermajority in Florida makes it increasingly easy to pass sweeping preemption bills with little resistance. When one party dominates Tallahassee, policy-making can drift away from grassroots needs. The result? A surge in state-level control that sidelines local voices and makes it harder for communities to innovate or respond to local challenges.

3. The Rise of Populism

Populism has become the new wave of politics. At the local level, this has often led to soundbite solutions. The dedicated populists defer policy decisions to the Facebook comment sections and the loud minority over making decisions based on the actual rule of law or existing state statutes. We saw this locally with questionable votes, bordering on illegal, on final plats in 2025. The state had to step in and preempt local boards from putting these plats on agendas, thus making their approvals administrative. We will continue seeing preemptions at the state level if we continue seeing arbitrary and capricious decisions at the local level.

But, in spite of “preemption” being considered a dirty word, it’s not always bad or misguided. I do not want to sound like an absolutist that cannot acknowledge good bills passing for good reasons.

As with the corrective bills against arbitrary decisions above, some preemptions are necessary and beneficial to the overall state. Affordable housing bills are a prime example. Local efforts alone can’t solve a statewide crisis if done unilaterally. If one county or city acts alone to increase supply, the demand will just shift from elsewhere as it chases that new supply, negating the benefits to that locale that attempted to do the right thing. We need a uniform framework for collaboration across Florida’s 67 counties - without entirely gutting local flexibility.

Manatee County’s push to expand affordable housing and ease development opportunities with the removal of minimum lot sizes and parking ratios would benefit from coordinated state-level policies. If our surrounding neighbors do not make similar adjustments, we will risk simply becoming the affordable bedroom community donut hole for the other counties without materially lowering our actual affordability. This creates an unfortunate disincentive unless, and until, the state steps in.

Some bills have an opportunity to meaningfully moved the needle, including the existing Live Local Act and its various revisions. In 2026, we’re seeing bills to allow ADU’s as-of-right (SB48 / HB313), to expand development near transit (HB1183 / SB1342) and to expand opportunities with the Florida Starter Homes Act (SB948 / HB1143) aimed at homeownership for first-time buyers by reducing regulatory barriers. The Starter Homes Act includes a number of the proposals made in my recent Substack (On Affordable Housing).

I know each of the above bills were written with input and assistance from local officials. These bills show that, when the state and local governments work together, real progress is possible. Statewide coordination can help address big challenges like housing, but only if it’s done with respect for local needs and input.

So, what is the sweet spot? Ideally, Tallahassee would go with the carrot, not the stick. Incentives, not mandates. The state should reward local governments for aligning with broad priorities instead of tying their hands with one-size-fits-all rules. For instance, pairing receipt of Sadowski funds with requested modifications to land development codes to enhance affordable housing.

Because when Tallahassee imposes unfunded mandates or blanket policies, innovation dies. Local governments deserve a voice, especially when our future is determined by decisions made hundreds of miles away.

Going into 2026, the tug-of-war between home rule and state preemption is a struggle over who gets to shape the future of Florida. It’s about political strategy, fiscal influence and the philosophy of big-vs-limited governance. Striking a balance, grounded in mutual respect and cooperation between local and state authorities, is crucial for effective governance and stronger, autonomous communities.

So the next time you hear about a new bill in Tallahassee, ask yourself: Who benefits? Who loses? And are we making room for local voices, or just playing politics with Florida’s future?

Then call or email you state delegates (Senators / House Reps). Tell them when you see an issue with a preemption bill. But also reach out when you see something positive. We need to ensure the good bills get to the finish line as much as we need to push back on the bad ones, even if they seemingly get most of the press.

Just remember. Oversight is fine. Uniformity has its place. But Florida thrives when local communities have room to independently govern and innovate.

Preemption of your home rule should be done with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

George Kruse is an at-large member of the Manatee County Commission and its District 7 commissioner. This article originally appeared on his Substack blog. Click here to subscribe.