islandpacket.com - The Island Packet Online

Search Everything in the Lowcountry and the Coastal Empire.

Federal courts should not usurp local zoning control

Property owners should first seek local, state remedies

Add Comment

Local governments' ability to protect their communities from harmful land uses was dealt a blow recently when the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that makes it easier for developers and landowners to side-step state courts and head straight to federal court.

The bill's proponents say it allows those with claims under the Constitution's Fifth Amendment just-compensation clause to take their case straight to federal court, like any other civil-rights case. They claim a combination of Supreme Court decisions requires such claims to be heard in state court first, but then precludes claims in federal court if the case has been heard in state court.

But it doesn't make sense to head straight to federal court before you know whether you actually have been harmed. If state court disallows the taking or provides for adequate compensation, where's the harm and where's the need for federal court?

What heading straight to federal court will do is give developers a big hammer when negotiating with local governments over land use. And as the Justice Department pointed out in 1998, when a similar bill was under consideration, this route would "create confusion and wasteful litigation by encouraging premature lawsuits in federal court" that would inevitably be dismissed because a claimant hadn't yet pursued local remedies or sought compensation in state court.

Zoning is a local government function. The government closest to the people should decide what goes on in our individual communities. Zoning and land-use regulations might diminish the potential value of some property, but they also protect property values and community standards overall. Federal courts should not be deciding the particulars of zoning cases before their merits are heard in local and state venues.

The bill's proponents include the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Home Builders Association. Its opponents include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

It passed the House Sept. 29 by a vote of 231-181, with 20 members not voting. South Carolina's delegation split down party lines, with Republicans Henry Brown, James Barrett and Bob Inglis voting for the bill and Democrats John Spratt and James Clyburn voting against it. Republican Joe Wilson did not vote, but is listed as a bill sponsor. The bill is now in the Senate.

If property owners truly are being shut out of federal courts, then fix that and allow them to bring constitutional issues to federal court. But don't let the federal court be the court of first resort for issues that are quintessentially local issues.