The S.C. House is debating a bill that could do irreparable harm to our communities, our economy and our environment.

Sponsored by Rep. Tracy Edge from Myrtle Beach and promoted by the South Carolina Association of Realtors, the so-called “just compensation for land use” legislation should be renamed the “bailout program for land speculators.” If it passes, the costs to the state and local governments could be staggering and would quickly strangle planning and environmental protection efforts statewide.

Rep. Edge has attached his compensation legislation to a bill that addresses legitimate concerns about the manner in which government agencies exercise eminent domain. It is noteworthy that the proponents of the compensation measure have refused to separate the two issues so that each can be debated on its own merits. I am certain they realize that if the public has an opportunity to learn about the compensation measure, they will reject it as yet another power grab by developers and speculators.

Fortunately, the Legislature has consistently rejected regulatory compensation bills almost every year for the past decade. A rigorous fiscal impact study of a compensation proposal in 1998 concluded that the bill would burden taxpayers with more than $100 million in expenses the first year it passed, with the added insult that more than three-fourths of the costs would go to lawyers and administrators rather than to landowners. We were very grateful that the Legislature chose not to pass that particular compensation bill.

Defending his bill in The State, Rep. Edge said: “(T)here will certainly be new regulations on the horizon. The House bill would permit those in only the most extreme circumstances, but government regulation never comes without a price tag. Someone has to pay that price. If government decides to impose regulations that devalue property, then it is government that should bear that cost.” (emphasis added)

This is either a remarkably naive misunderstanding of property, or Rep. Edge holds a view not shared by 99 percent of the American public. Most Americans buy houses in neighborhoods where uses are substantially restricted: where your next door neighbor does not have the right to build mini-warehouses in his front yard and you do not have the right to erect a billboard in yours. You are denied these rights even though you and your neighbor would both make substantial profits on mini-storage and a billboard. In this case, Rep. Edge’s legislation would require the town or city imposing these restrictions to compensate everyone in the neighborhood in order to remove the rights to build mini-storage and billboards.

In his guest column, Rep. Edge praises the recent legislation that curbs local governments’ power to regulate billboards. He considers that legislation, which Gov. Mark Sanford vetoed, only to be overridden by the General Assembly, a model for land regulation of all sorts. He believes that any time a town, city or the state — acting on behalf of the greater good — would like to control a particular use, it should have to pay every property owner who is affected.

Only one state in the nation, Oregon, has passed a sweeping law like the one the House is now considering. Its experience should be a warning to South Carolina. An article in Portland’s daily newspaper states, “Three months into Measure 37 (Oregon’s compensation bill), people on both sides of the new property rights law agree on one thing: Oregon is a state in chaos.” Real estate activity has been dampened because of the lack of certainty surrounding the uses of property.

As a businessman, I can tell you that commercial certainty is one of the most important elements of a thriving economy. The last thing South Carolina needs to do is adopt a radical new program that turns conventional planning and zoning upside-down and throws into question the legal status of property around the state.

Property rights are also essential to a thriving economy. Acknowledging this fact, Sen. Glenn McConnell sponsored property rights legislation that was enacted on June 2, 2003. Act 39 provides a more expedient and cost-effective way for landowners to challenge unfair regulations. This was a reform that all landowners and taxpayers can applaud.

Rep. Edge works for a large development company in Myrtle Beach. In that capacity, he has every right to advocate legislation that may benefit development interests. However, he should not use his position as a member of the House to promote legislation that is clearly detrimental to the needs of our growing state.

At the very least, he and his allies should agree to divide the issues of eminent domain and regulation compensation. Only if that happens can the public be assured of careful consideration of an extremely important, and potentially disastrous, legislative action.

Mr. Lane is president of the Bank of South Carolina.