Sanford veto shows courage

e-mail this story discuss this issue in our forums

Gov. Mark Sanford acted deliberatively and with courage last week when he vetoed a fundamentally flawed bill that would have significantly changed this state's property tax system. The bill also would have shifted the tax burden from richer school districts to poorer ones and quite often from more advantaged people to more disadvantaged ones. And, if that's not enough, the bill was unconstitutional on its face.

Sanford had until midnight Jan. 12 to veto the bill or it would have become law without his signature. The veto should be the speed bump needed to get state legislators to slow down and reconsider their reckless action that came on the last day of the most recent legislative session.

The culprit in this case was a piece of bobtailed legislation, and the governor and proponents of good government detest this practice that allows lawmakers to attach unrelated amendments to a bill. This amended bill passed on a voice vote during the closing hours of the last day of the session.

The amended legislation would have dangerously distorted our property tax system. It also would have been unfair for how it shifted the tax burden from people who live in more expensive homes to those who have more modest homes or to small businesses and renters.

The bill sought to put a 20 percent cap on property tax increases for those in the residential, commercial and agricultural classes. That surely sounds like a great idea to most people who hate property taxes and don't want their local taxes to go up after a countywide reassessment.

But instead of lowering everyone's tax bill, this legislation would have created artificial winners and losers after each reassessment. The reason is simple: After each reassessment, counties must adjust their millage rates so they don't reap a huge windfall, but the counties also must ensure that they don't lose existing revenue through those millage changes.

People who had seen significant property tax increases under the vetoed bill would have realized a tremendous savings through the 20 percent cap. But everyone else — people in modest homes, renters, most small businesses — would have ended up paying a greater share of property taxes.

And the bill would eventually have caused a significant shift in education funding from wealthier counties — that would ultimately see their countywide property assessments decline — to poorer counties where property isn't gaining value rapidly.

Sanford was right to veto this horrible bill. The Legislature should sustain this veto.