Recently, I received on Facebook a lobbying effort by current City Council members concerning Home Rule for the City of Williamsport. In the 2026 Primary Election to be held May 19th, city voters will get to vote on a government study Commission. Some of the members of that Commission have already revealed their views, notwithstanding that not a word has yet been written by the Commission.

According to the Williamsport Sun-Gazette, the state Department of Community and Economic Development has made a recommendation that the city pursue the creation of a Home Rule Charter for the city.

The argument in favor of Home Rule is to, “increase the city’s financial stability, decrease its dependency on property tax, diversify its opportunities for taxation, and provide the city with better local control over governance.”

The Commission will be made up of 7 members, some of whom have already, as noted above, announced their intentions.

This Commission is going to be extremely important, and people need to be elected to the Commission who are truly open minded on the subject.

Home Rule Charters exist throughout Pennsylvania. In some cases, they have empowered city council, and their equivalent, to take over the job as mayor and appoint a paid manager. A manager, not accountable to the people at election time, presents its own problems and potential scandals.

It is difficult to run a city with multiple mayors, which is what City Council may turn into under a Home Rule program. Finally, the available information may demonstrate that Home Rule governments lead to higher taxes. Williamsport already has the highest mercantile tax rate in the state, driving local business out of the city and into the burbs.

When a recommendation states that the city’s financial stability will be “increased” and that there will be an ability to “diversify” opportunities for taxation, what that means is more taxes and less oversight by a strong mayor accountable to the people.

The real question is going to be how a weak form of mayoral government, with an empowered city council, would “dramatically and positively impact city revenue” without resulting in higher taxes and without driving employers, who employ city residents, out of the city? That question has not yet been answered; we hope to hear more about it.

My own view is to listen, study, and understand.

Since 1968, the Pennsylvania Constitution has allowed local governments to run their own affairs with less state intervention. That sounds like it should be a good thing, but sometimes state intervention is necessary to keep local politics from paralyzing city government.

It appears that municipalities which have adopted Home Rule in Pennsylvania have raised their Earned Income Tax levels. This is what Lancaster did when it implemented a Home Rule Charter. Usually, the increase in income tax is justified by a claim that property taxes would be lowered. However, when cities, like Williamsport, have been poorly managed and have tax deficits, it is likely that a Home Rule will simply result in more taxes, not less. Lancaster is not necessarily a template for Williamsport. It is part of Amish country and close to Philadelphia, which provides many more options for Lancaster than for Williamsport.

Home Rule adoption must be preceded by a study commission, which is why some of the members of that commission who are running in the primary have already announced their views and opinions.

Williamsport is a third-class city, and officeholders have already stated that the current system of government, “limits the mechanisms we have to raise revenue to provide services.” Williamsport City Council President Adam Yoder, in an interview.

Some cities, including Lancaster, have considered a drink tax. The reader can be sure that government will never run out of ways to raise taxes, if new opportunities are provided to them.

There is very little talk about efficiency, ways to save money, and citizen involvement in policing and recreation to address Williamsport’s endemic budget challenges.

Find new ways to tax is the mantra of those who seek a weak mayoral system of government.

For those seeking more information about what Home Rule is all about, there is a publication entitled, “Home Rule in Pennsylvania,” put out by the Governor’s Center for Local Government Services. Try reading this booklet some night when you have trouble falling asleep.

The bottom line is that Home Rule has worked for some areas and not so well for others. Accountability is the number one problem with Home Rule. Instead of a mayor having to answer to the people, the blame or benefit can be spread among city council members. The manager answers not to the people, but to the competing political interests of those who serve on city council.

Home Rule is a child of the progressive movement birthed in the 19th Century. The concept is that governance should be left to the most local entity available, not the federal government, not the states, not the region, but rather to the city or town. The problem is that in the modern world, local control sometimes means no control and no regional or state oversight.

While we all like the concept of more localized democracy, eliminating the mayor, empowering city council members, and enhancing the power to tax locally is not necessarily the best alternative to orderly self-government. Just imagine self-governance, Home Rule, throughout Pennsylvania’s multiplicity of municipal and city governments. Every city and town would wind up being a state onto itself, creating a crazy quilt patchwork of regulation and taxes which may serve the interest of ambitious politicians, but not necessarily the interests of John and Mary Doe.

The by-word is “choose carefully.” Once Home Rule is instituted, it will be difficult to undo. Home Rule will be supported by city council, which would be delighted to be rid of an elected mayor so that its behind the doors backroom deals can receive less scrutiny from the press and public.

My own mind is still open, and I look forward to the sales pitch likely to be thrust upon the citizens of the city of Williamsport by those elected to the Home Rule Commission. I would be more comfortable with those running for the Home Rule Commission if they were also open minded and thought about an appropriate balance between taxes and spending with an eye towards having a handle on expenditures, rather than the lever of additional taxation.

Clifford A. Rieders is a board-certified trial advocate in Williamsport.