Sen. Brian Pettyjohn, R-Georgetown, is the Senate’s minority whip, as well as a former Georgetown Town Council member and mayor.
Delaware has long respected the principle of home rule, which is the idea that decisions about land use and zoning should be made at the local level, by the people and councils who know their communities best. It’s a principle grounded in trust and democracy. We trust local governments because their elected officials live in the very neighborhoods affected by their decisions. They drive on the same roads, shop at the same establishments, send their kids to the same schools and hear directly from constituents at grocery stores, ballfields and public meetings.
This session, that principle is under attack.
Senate bills 159, 87 and 75 and House Bill 135 are a series of proposals that form a troubling pattern of legislative overreach. Together, they threaten to centralize power in Dover and override the carefully considered decisions of county and municipal governments. Each bill addresses a different issue, but all have one thing in common: They erode the authority of local governments and set a dangerous precedent.
SB 159: overriding a local decision
This bill responds directly to a specific action taken by Sussex County Council in December 2024. Council denied a conditional use application from Renewable Redevelopment, a subsidiary of US Wind, seeking to build a massive electrical substation in Sussex County to serve a Maryland-based offshore wind project.
Troublingly, the application hid its connection to US Wind, and the public only discovered the affiliation through a citizen-led Freedom of Information Act request. Until then, there was no opportunity for community input.
Despite the application being rightfully denied under county zoning law, SB 159 would force approval through legislation. It overrides a quasi-judicial zoning decision, targets a single project for special treatment and sends the message that, if you don’t like a local decision, you can get a do-over in Dover.
The bill is also disguised. It’s presented as utility legislation but is actually a zoning bill, slipped into the wrong section of Delaware law. This raises serious constitutional concern, including a potential violation of the separation of powers.
SB 87: mandated density
SB 87 would require municipalities and homeowners associations to allow secondary housing units, or accessory dwelling units, on single-family lots without local input. While increasing housing stock is a worthy goal, this approach ignores critical local factors, like infrastructure, stormwater, traffic and school capacity. It assumes that all communities are alike and that state officials know better than local residents do.
SB 75: stripping oversight of marijuana establishments
SB 75 limits local authority over marijuana businesses, including hours of operation and zoning decisions. Even those who support legalization should be concerned. This bill removes the ability of communities to make decisions based on public safety and local character.
HB 135: unfunded mandates
This bill restricts how local governments can respond to homelessness unless “adequate indoor space” is available. That term is left undefined. Worse, it provides no funding or resources to meet the requirement.
Local government is not the problem
Together, these bills signal that the state no longer trusts local governments. They suggest that, if a town or county makes an unpopular decision, Dover will override it. That’s not representative government; it’s centralized control.
Local leaders are your neighbors. They listen and respond directly to residents. That’s how democracy should work.
The right path: collaboration
If we want to solve challenges like housing, energy production and public health, the state must partner with local governments, not steamroll them. I urge my colleagues to oppose SB 159, SB 87, SB 75 and HB 135.
Let’s stand up for home rule before it disappears. Strong communities depend on it.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
