They’ll call it “nuance,” but it sure sounds like wanting it both ways.
In mid-2025, the Dallas Morning News editorial board explicitly defended local authority and criticized state laws that prevent cities from going beyond state minimums. They argued that state preemption undermines local accountability and prevents communities from tailoring policy to local needs.
Their words:
“Different communities have different needs… and the state’s blanket-ban approach to restricting local control hurts the ability of elected representatives closest to the people to address those needs.”
Fair enough. Even if you don’t agree with the conclusion, there’s a legitimate question there about where the line should be.
Now fast-forward.
In an editorial last week, that same board was worked up about how the City of Frisco responded to a new state law requiring high-density residential use in certain commercial zones.
Here’s how they described it:
“Frisco pulled a different trick. Senate Bill 840 exempts industrial areas, so Frisco changed its zoning code to permit heavy industry in commercial zones.”
And:
“Instead of opening the door to new development, this move inserts potential roadblocks.… Texans deserve more choices, not clever zoning tricks that leave workers and families scrambling for options.”
Same paper. Same mechanism. Very different attitude.
When the state blocks cities from doing more than state law allows, that’s an attack on local control.
When a city uses state law exactly as written to protect itself, that’s a “trick.”
At that point, it’s hard to pretend this is about principle.
It’s not really local control they care about. It’s outcomes.
When local authority produces results they like, it’s democracy.
When it doesn’t, it’s obstruction.
When state preemption limits cities they agree with, it’s tyranny.
When it overrides cities they disagree with, it’s a helpful “tool.”
Frisco didn’t defy the law. It complied with it. The state rewrote the rules. Frisco responded within those rules to limit exposure and protect its planning assumptions. That’s what rational actors do when mandates come from above and the costs stay local.
If the legislature didn’t like that outcome, that’s a drafting problem.
Calling it a “clever zoning trick” isn’t analysis. It’s frustration that the law didn’t force obedience.
Most people don’t mind hearing arguments they disagree with. What they don’t like is watching someone argue both sides of the same principle while acting like they’re above the conflict.
If bypassing long-established rules is smart, explain why.
If local control matters, defend it consistently.
Anything else isn’t nuance. It’s just convenience.
If this kind of thinking is useful to you, sign up below to get them in your inbox daily.
Or, if you think someone else would appreciate it, feel free to share it.
Leave a Reply