Proposal 2 has a strong concept behind it - but suffers from poor execution.

Voters should turn it down and it should be reintroduced later when its purpose, wording and impact are clear.

Proposal 2 would amend the state constitution to require the Legislature to acquire a two-thirds vote in each house to pass any law that “intervenes, or increases, the scope of its interventions, in the municipal concerns, property, or government of a city, village, county, township or any municipal authority.”

The amendment would be retroactive and would affect any law enacted on or before March 1.

Proponents of Proposal 2 state that it would protect local control, but its vague wording makes it unclear exactly what would be covered under this amendment. Almost any law could be said to be in the jurisdiction of local government.

The foggy wording of the proposal could create chaos. Many issues are better handled at the state level rather controlled by individual communities. It is necessary to have consistency throughout the state.

The average voter will be confused by the wording and purpose of Proposal 2. Proponents of the proposal have been ineffective in educating the public about its purpose and effects.

Proposal 2 appears to be driven by a hidden agenda. It seems to be knee-jerk reaction to the Legislature’s adoption of a state-wide construction code, in which a municipal building inspector must inspect the plumbing of every home, business, and building on an annual basis.

Many communities cannot afford to adhere to the law, and so the financial burden has fallen on the taxpayer. Local governments are unable to adapt this law to their own unique circumstances.

In most cases, the power of local government has not been affected by state control. The erosion of local control is not a statewide problem and a state law may be unnecessary.

Proposal 2 is driven by a positive idea. Few people would disagree that strong local control is good for the people.

Local government should be allowed to cater itself to the area and address the unique concerns of a particular community. Strong local control prevents the implementation of laws that are unnecessary in a certain area and brings government closer to the people.

A two-thirds majority also would prevent local laws from being affected by the agenda of one party. A two-thirds majority would require better bipartisan support before intervening in local government.

But the wording of the proposal makes its jurisdiction unclear. The proposal’s impact is too broad and unspecified.

The proposal should be analyzed and reintroduced later with clearer language.