Business
Senators Say 'Local Only' Purchasing Would Hurt Florida Businesses
Around the State
Boundary lines across Florida shouldn’t be a factor when a city or county considers construction contracts that involve state dollars, senators on the Community Affairs Committee said Monday.
Despite objections in support of "buy local" efforts by the Florida League of Cities, the committee voted to support SB 1460, which would prohibit local communities from giving local contractors preferential treatment when considering a project that would receive any amount of state money.
Sen. David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs, the sponsor of the bill, said local preference requirements have kept businesses from competing for contracts, drive up costs and hinder free-market competition.
“It is not government’s role to create unfair advantages to local business. As a matter of fact, it’s not their responsibility, it’s not their right,” Simmons said.
Sens. Jim Norman, R-Tampa, and Ronda Storms, R-Brandon, both objected to the bill, equating the local ordinances to campaigns that encourage people to "Buy American" products.
“Do you think it’s OK to outsource call centers and things like that to India just to save a buck and put all of our own people out of work?” Storms said.
Simmons said local-only ordinances discriminate against companies that could be located just beyond the county or city line.
“In contracting, we are talking about local services, we’re not talking about services from India or China or something like that. We’re talking about services from local people and we’re using arbitrary boundaries of cities,” Simmons said.
“If you just happen to be right next door, within 1,000 feet, you’re being discriminated against; that’s a real problem.”
Sen. Garrett Richter, R-Naples, compared cities and counties imposing local preference ordinances to a Little League coach putting his own son on the mound when there are better options to winning the game.
“When we’re spending taxpayers’ dollars I’d like to have the best pitcher in there,” Richter said.
The bill was supported by Associated General Contractors and Associated Builders and Contractors.
Meanwhile, Stephen Hogge, a Tallahassee attorney representing the League of Cities, said the decision should be left to the local governments.
“I think one of the reasons you don’t see local governments with one of these preferences is because they do recognize there are limits and they are using them surgically to address needs in their community,” Hogge said.
“We believe that local preferences are an important economic development tool in some communities.”
Local governments would still have the ability to impose local preferences on projects that do not receive any state money.
The House version, HB 673, received the backing of the Government Operations Subcommittee on Jan. 18 and is scheduled to go before the Community and Military Affairs Subcommittee on Tuesday.
Reach Jim Turner at jturner@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 215-9889.
Despite objections in support of "buy local" efforts by the Florida League of Cities, the committee voted to support SB 1460, which would prohibit local communities from giving local contractors preferential treatment when considering a project that would receive any amount of state money.
Sen. David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs, the sponsor of the bill, said local preference requirements have kept businesses from competing for contracts, drive up costs and hinder free-market competition.
“It is not government’s role to create unfair advantages to local business. As a matter of fact, it’s not their responsibility, it’s not their right,” Simmons said.
Sens. Jim Norman, R-Tampa, and Ronda Storms, R-Brandon, both objected to the bill, equating the local ordinances to campaigns that encourage people to "Buy American" products.
“Do you think it’s OK to outsource call centers and things like that to India just to save a buck and put all of our own people out of work?” Storms said.
Simmons said local-only ordinances discriminate against companies that could be located just beyond the county or city line.
“In contracting, we are talking about local services, we’re not talking about services from India or China or something like that. We’re talking about services from local people and we’re using arbitrary boundaries of cities,” Simmons said.
“If you just happen to be right next door, within 1,000 feet, you’re being discriminated against; that’s a real problem.”
Sen. Garrett Richter, R-Naples, compared cities and counties imposing local preference ordinances to a Little League coach putting his own son on the mound when there are better options to winning the game.
“When we’re spending taxpayers’ dollars I’d like to have the best pitcher in there,” Richter said.
The bill was supported by Associated General Contractors and Associated Builders and Contractors.
Meanwhile, Stephen Hogge, a Tallahassee attorney representing the League of Cities, said the decision should be left to the local governments.
“I think one of the reasons you don’t see local governments with one of these preferences is because they do recognize there are limits and they are using them surgically to address needs in their community,” Hogge said.
“We believe that local preferences are an important economic development tool in some communities.”
Local governments would still have the ability to impose local preferences on projects that do not receive any state money.
The House version, HB 673, received the backing of the Government Operations Subcommittee on Jan. 18 and is scheduled to go before the Community and Military Affairs Subcommittee on Tuesday.
Reach Jim Turner at jturner@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 215-9889.
Comments (1)
What gives you all the right to limit my purchases to foreign made or grown items? What you all have done is limit my freedom of choices, especially USA choices by your legislation. You give preference to foreign products and services through your legislation.