Dorchester County Council voted Monday to formally ask Gov. Mark Sanford to veto legislation that establishes a 20 percent statewide reassessment cap. County Council is giving the governor all the right reasons.
Of prime concern are the legal problems with the proposed cap. As the County Council resolution notes, the legislation didn't get the two-thirds recorded vote required of bills that make changes in the tax system. The bill passed by a voice vote in both the House and Senate just as the session was winding up for the year.
Even more basic is the constitutional question. Council's resolution contends the legislation violates Article X of the state constitution, which requires that "property taxes be levied on fair market value of property and that they be fair and uniform." The constitutional issue is a serious one and is the basis of a lawsuit by the city of North Charleston in connection with Charleston County's adoption of an earlier, 15 percent local option reassessment cap.
The statewide legislation actually nullifies the earlier local option legislation -- adopted only by Charleston County -- and thus, if signed by the governor, would delay a resolution of the constitutional question. That question must be resolved regardless of whether the 15 percent local option reassessment cap stays in effect or is supplanted by the 20 percent statewide reassessment limit.
Dorchester County Council further points out it is working on its state-mandated reassessment program, which is required every five years. The resolution contends that the new law would hinder the county's ability to complete that program, citing among other points, the need for additional staff.
Dorchester isn't the only county with a reassessment deadline to be met and a massive job ahead if the governor were to sign the bill. Actually, the governor has until a few days after the Legislature reconvenes next year to make up his mind. But it's hard to believe he would keep officials biting their nails for that long.
If he vetoes the bill, there's enough opposition building -- from the S.C. Association of Counties and the state Chamber of Commerce, among others -- to provide reasonable belief the veto would be sustained. Meanwhile, it's even possible the North Charleston suit could be far enough along to give the Legislature legal guidance.
Even better, a veto might convince lawmakers that when it comes to changing the way property is taxed they'd better adhere to the constitutional requirement of a vote by the people at the polls rather than a voice vote of an unknown number of state legislators.
Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/071404/edi_14edit2.shtml