In many Illinois municipalities, the question of whether to keep or eliminate home rule status arises from time to time. While the term might sound abstract, the consequences of losing it are very real. Home rule is not about giving more power to government rather, it is about shifting power and flexibility to the local community and away from the State of Illinois. Removing home rule takes away vital tools for local leaders to respond effectively to the needs of their residents and conversely gives more control to the state over local issues. Like many things out there, some will oppose this and have counter points. This is good for everyone, but the reality is that losing home rule status would in fact have profound consequences that those opposing it refuse to acknowledge. The intent of this article, and series of articles to come, is in effort to educate our community to the reality of home rule, separating it from uninformed rumors, and how losing it would most certainly have an impact. 

What Is Home Rule?
In Illinois, communities with more than 25,000 residents automatically become “home rule” units. Smaller towns can also choose to adopt home rule through a referendum. Home rule gives municipalities broader authority to govern themselves without needing approval or direct authority from the state. It allows for more local decision-making on matters such as public safety, economic development, infrastructure investment, and revenue generation. A recent example was the no camping ordinance on city-owned property. Without this ordinance, the city would not have been able to clean up the river front from all of the camping taking place by homeless individuals. The public has been complaining about this issue for years, and when the opportunity presented itself, the city passed an ordinance that prevents this particular issue now, and we have had success dealing with it. Another example is the recent ordinance banning the gas-powered low-speed bikes, or the “DUI bikes” that many have complained about. Current state laws do not address these, and by being home rule we were able to address an issue at our local level.

The Local Advantage
Every community is different. What works in Chicago might not make sense in Pekin, Danville, or any other city across Illinois. Home rule ensures that decisions are made closer to the people they affect, by local leaders who understand the unique challenges and opportunities of their town. Without home rule, a city’s ability to act is constrained by Springfield politics, bureaucracy, and one-size-fits-all state mandates.

Financial Stability and Flexibility
One of the strongest arguments for home rule is financial flexibility. With state and federal funding often unreliable, home rule gives municipalities more options to raise revenue locally and keep essential services strong. This doesn’t always mean higher taxes. Rather, it means the ability to structure fees, incentives, and revenue sources in ways that fit the community’s needs. Without home rule, cities are forced into rigid state limits, which can lead to cuts in police, fire, infrastructure, and quality-of-life services.

Accountability and Transparency
Opponents of home rule sometimes argue that it gives local government “too much power.” In reality, home rule keeps accountability closest to the voters. Residents can see how decisions are made, attend council meetings, and directly question their leaders. If they don’t like the choices being made, they can voice concerns or vote for change at the ballot box. Stripping away home rule doesn’t reduce government power; it just shifts it away from local leaders to lawmakers hundreds of miles away, in Springfield (Chicago).

Protecting the Community’s Future
Communities that give up home rule risk stagnation. Economic development often depends on the flexibility to negotiate incentives, plan infrastructure improvements, and adapt to shifting market demands. Without home rule, cities have fewer tools to attract new businesses, revitalize neighborhoods, or respond quickly to emerging challenges. The long-term impact can be fewer job opportunities, declining property values, and reduced quality of life.

Keeping home rule is not about giving government a blank check. It is about preserving the community’s ability to make its own choices, solve its own problems, and shape its own future. When a city gives up home rule, it gives up control, and once gone, it is extremely difficult to get back.

For residents who value local decision-making, strong services, and a responsive government, protecting home rule status should not be in question. It is the safeguard that keeps power where it belongs. Right here, at home. Opponents of home rule tend to focus too much on the word “rule.” That word is in both types of government. The question is whether the public wants the “rule” to be from “home” (local leaders) or from “non-home” (Springfield/Chicago).

As we move forward in this series, I do intend to provide examples of how losing home rule impacted communities and the taxpayers. This initial article is a high-level overview of what home rule is and the impacts it can have, as well as the risks of losing it. As always, any questions related to home rule one may have, we will certainly try to address them in the article. Questions can be submitted to me at [email protected], and the city has a frequently asked questions page on the city website.