The opinion
Moyer, C.J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 23} I concur in the dissenting opinion of Justice Lanzinger for all of the reasons she has expressed regarding the misapplication of Section 34, Article II of the Ohio Constitution by the majority opinion.
{¶ 24} I write separately to observe that with the rationale used by the majority in this case and by the majority in Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde, 120 Ohio St.3d 96 , 2008-Ohio-4605 , 896 N.E.2d 967 , a course has been set that will result in the resolution of very few important policy decisions by elected officials of local government when the General Assembly decides to intervene. The balance struck in the Ohio Constitution between the officials of local government determining those issues that have no statewide application and the General Assembly determining issues of general public interest is now tipped dramatically against the authority of local elected officials under the new conception of home rule.
{¶ 25} I suggest that if such a dramatic change in the application of constitutional principles is to be created, it should be through an amendment to the Ohio Constitution and not through the decisions of this court.
{¶26} Because today’s decision once again undercuts the system of dual sovereignty established in the Ohio Constitution and supported by earlier decisions of this court, I respectfully dissent from the decision and the opinion of the majority.
Lanzinger, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.