House would eliminate ability to enforce zoning or land-use ordinances

Published March 17, 2006

The state House has gone too far in its legislation to protect homeowners from government takings.

The House addressed last year's Supreme Court opinion that allows local governments to take private property through the power of eminent domain to further commercial developments.

It was a terrible decision that undermines property rights and opens the way for runaway government abuse. Lawmakers in South Carolina and many other states are responding by changing state laws regarding eminent domain.

The House acted properly in limiting local governments to acquiring property by force only for public use. Current law allowed cities and counties to take property through eminent domain for a "public purpose." The Supreme Court ruled that such a purpose includes facilitating a commercial development. The change would mean that the city or county would have to maintain ownership of any property obtained by force.

But House members went too far when they included "regulatory takings" in their package. This would force cities and counties to pay landowners when a zoning change or a land-use restriction limits how they can use their land.

Such a requirement could practically end zoning and land-use regulations. When an area is zoned as residential or agricultural, a landowner could claim that he had wanted to put a commercial development on the property and demand compensation for the lost use of the land.

That would drastically limit the ability of local governments to issue meaningful land-use ordinances -- ordinances the General Assembly recently required them to generate.

Zoning and land-use regulations are not a threat to private property rights. They are the primary means by which local governments can protect those property rights. These are the laws that protect the property values of homeowners from incompatible development.

Land-use rules are also the method by which communities can plan their future, channel commercial and industrial growth where it is wanted and plan to build their infrastructure system.

The House would take these elements of control away from cities and counties. It would leave them unable to manage their growth and control their futures.

The Senate has not included this harmful measure in its eminent domain legislation. The Senate version should be adopted.