IT HAS BECOME A standard question during Gov. Mark Sanford's budget hearings with state agencies: Got any surplus property you can unload?

The question grows out of a 1999 Legislative Audit Council report that identified 53 parcels of "potentially surplus" land worth more than $13 million that various state agencies are holding onto; there likely is more surplus land in the state's million-acre holdings, since the audit covered only six state agencies.

The audit called for establishing a centralized land-management system and looking to sell off property the state doesn't need. But as The Greenville News reported last month, legislators haven't lifted a finger to follow those common-sense proposals. One legislative leader who requested the audit said he had assumed the Budget and Control Board had handled the matter. It hasn't, although Mr. Sanford, who chairs the board, did recently convince that body to impose a 90-day moratorium on state property purchases while procedures can be examined to encourage agencies first to consider land and buildings already owned by the government before looking to the private sector. It's unclear how much more the board can do without legislative approval.

The problem with our current system is that it's pretty much up to each agency to determine whether it holds on to unnecessary property. Since the agencies generally don't get to keep the proceeds, they see little incentive to sell. So they keep unused or underutilized property because they might someday want to use it.

That's a reasonable consideration, but it's only one consideration. Even agency directors who care more about the good of the entire state government than their own agency often overlook the bigger issue: The biggest cost of the state holding on to undeveloped or underutilized property is borne not by the state government but by the local community, in lost economic development and lost property taxes.

While some communities are so hungry for jobs that even a prison is a welcome addition, others see massive tracts of government-owned land as a drain on the economy; the government jobs that center around that land are more than offset by the loss of private development and the jobs and taxes it would generate. That's why Columbia officials were so excited last month to learn that the Department of Mental Health is looking to sell 178 acres of prime real estate; it's why Port Royal officials jumped for joy when the governor suggested that the tiny state port there be closed and the property sold for private development.

Selling unused property isn't always wise. But state agencies too often don't consider another option, of turning it over to other agencies. Some agencies automatically look to the private sector when they need more or new space. And some aren't willing to part with "their" property, even if that can keep it in government hands. Both situations need to change.

But as we look to make changes, we need to be realistic about what selling off government property can and can't accomplish. No one should view such changes as a panacea for the budget crisis. First, it's not that much money. And while there may be some annual savings from not having to maintain unneeded property, the bulk of any money from sales will be available one time only. It shouldn't be used to fund ongoing needs, and it mustn't be used to fund expanding programs, as we are wont to do with one-time money. In fact, the main reason to sell unneeded property isn't to raise money, but to make sure it is put to its best use.