Members of the state Legislature continue to talk and talk about providing real property tax relief, but most still ignore the chief reason their efforts to date have failed -- the S.C. Constitution. Until the voters are given a chance to accept or reject the constitutional premise that real property must be assessed for tax purposes at fair market value, the legislators are wasting their time.

The property tax issue arose again last week during a floor debate on the governor's proposed income tax reduction legislation. While the income tax bill passed the House handily, our report noted that the opponents argued extensively that cutting the property tax would be preferable. Charleston's Rep. Bobby Harrell, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was quoted as countering that opponents -- mostly Democrats -- were being "disingenuous," and that it isn't an either/or situation. Calling the proposed income tax reduction -- from 7 to 4.75 percent over 10 years -- a "first step," he said property tax would be next up for consideration.

There are several key differences in approaching the income and property tax problems. The most important is that we have yet to hear any proposal on the property tax that could be expected to pass the constitutional test.

The Legislature, remember, starting trying to deal with the problem of escalating property taxes, primarily in the coastal counties, more than four years ago when it first passed a local option reassessment cap. Charleston was the only county to give it a try, but it went even further than the legislation allowed by giving the cap only to owner-occupied residences. The South Carolina Supreme Court struck down that effort but has yet to deal with the question of whether any cap would be constitutional.

The Legislature tried again last year with a statewide reassessment cap that wisely was vetoed by the governor. The Legislature upheld that veto. We'd like to think most members understood the importance of waiting for yet another Supreme Court decision on another Charleston County case that deals directly with the question of whether any cap would be constitutional as that document is now written.

We recognize that there are those who believe there is a way to avoid taking the fair market value issue to the voters via a constitutional amendment. But we believe it would be a mistake to continue to avoid facing the issue directly. Unless and until the voters -- not the legislators -- decide whether the constitution's fair market test should be changed, this matter will continue to be litigated.

It also should be noted that while the state income tax revisions impact the state budget, property tax revisions affect only local governing bodies. Proponents of the income tax revisions argue -- and we think persuasively -- that those revisions will promote more economic development. If the tax changes pass and the legislators are wrong, they will be responsible for deciding how to make up the difference.

But the property tax is the mainstay of local government. Who will be directly responsible if those proposed changes adversely affect city halls and county governments? That, of course, is another reason any change in anything so basic as the way property taxes are assessed should have the consent of the governed.