Legislature nixes Cleveland's trans-fat ban

Ohio lawmakers crammed a bunch of stuff into the new state budget, including this: They've overturned Cleveland's ban on trans fats in restaurant food.

City council passed the trans-fat ban in April, arguing that the industrially produced fats are especially bad for people's health. (Here's my blog post about chatting with Matt Zone about the law the night it passed.) It was supposed to go into effect in 2013.

But the Ohio Restaurant Association immediately asked the legislature to step in. They don't like the city law's documentation and reporting requirements. They want one set of restaurant regulations for the whole state, not a bunch of local laws. So the new law gives all power to regulate nutrition in Ohio restaurants to the state Department of Agriculture.

Rick Cassara, owner of John Q's Steakhouse on Public Square, told the Columbus Dispatch he's against cumbersome regulations of restaurants. "I do have a problem when it gets too much into telling us what we should and shouldn't serve or telling the consumer what they should and shouldn't eat," he said.

Joe Cimperman, who sponsored the ban, is furious. "This is an absolute affront," he told the Dispatch. He says Cleveland will sue to defend the ban. He thinks protecting citizens' health is part of a city's home rule powers.

But lawsuits to defend home rule in Ohio have been failing lately. The state has overturned Cleveland's predatory lending law and its residency requirement for city employees, just to name two. What are the odds a food law will survive?

Cleveland's residency law struck down

Expect a new exodus from Cleveland with the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling today. It struck down all residency requirements for city employees, including Cleveland's 27-year-old law.

Cops were high-fiving each other in the Justice Center this morning as the news spread, according to Henry Gomez's report on cleveland.com.

Mayor Frank Jackson, who had fought to uphold Cleveland's residency law, admitted defeat. "Cleveland will survive," he said. "We've been through difficult times before."

Expect hundreds of cops and firefighters to move to the suburbs as soon as this summer, further shrinking Cleveland's tax base and housing values -- that is, if they can find buyers for their houses. (The ruling allows all city employees to move out of town, including civil servants, but the safety forces' unions led the 20-year fight against Cleveland's residency law.)

Jacqueline Marino contemplated what a ruling like this could cost the city in "It's Wonderful Living in West Park," her essay in the October 2005 issue of Cleveland Magazine.

Politically, the ruling could defang other legislation passed by Cleveland and other cities. It's a new precedent about conflicts between city and state laws and the "home rule" provision of Ohio's Constitution, which gives cities "all powers of local self-government." The state legislature banned residency requirements in 2006. Today, the court upheld the ban on the grounds that the Constitution gives the legislature the power to “provid[e] for the comfort, health, safety and general welfare of all employe[e]s."

Here is the Supreme Court's summary of the ruling, which links to the full opinion. Here's the story on the ruling from the Toledo Blade.