COLUMBIA -- House lawmakers passed legislation Wednesday aimed at protecting property owners from government seizure of their land and requiring that they be compensated if a zoning change hurts their property value.

One of the two measures approved would ask voters in November to amend the state's Constitution in restricting how governments can take property.

One of the most controversial features would allow property owners to seek compensation from local governments if zoning action devalued their property.

Lawmakers struck the provision from the constitutional amendment, but later voted to include it in the statutory bill, despite arguments that it would make local governments "pay through the nose" and wreck the creation or expansion of historic districts.

Advertisement

Lawmakers exempted utilities and electric cooperatives from the compensation portion, the result of an amendment by Rep. Harry Cato of Travelers Rest. The amendment passed despite charges by House Majority Leader Jim Merrill and others that the proposal was the result of "arm-twisting" by lobbyists.

The legislation must pass a third reading today before being sent to the Senate, where past "takings" measures approved by the House have died.

Gov. Mark Sanford praised the House for protecting property owners.

"Protecting property that people have invested money, work and time into over the course of many years is key to allowing families to create wealth," he said.

The legislation comes after last summer's U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving a case in which a city took property and then gave it to a private developer saying the developed land would benefit the public.

Greenville lawmakers said they don't believe Wednesday's legislation, had it been in place at the time, would have had an impact on the case of three South Main Street properties taken by the city. The owners of those properties alleged their land was taken to enhance a nearby private development. A jury awarded the three $5.4 million, and the city recently agreed to pay $6.15 million.

City officials said they took the three properties to open up access to the forthcoming riverside park from Main Street and from Falls Park. Lawmakers said that would fit into the public use of property allowed by the new legislation.

Lawmakers said the legislation passed Wednesday was necessary because future courts in South Carolina might interpret current law differently.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Harrison said the major focus of the legislation was to define under what conditions government agencies could take private land.

"We want to make it crystal clear that public use does not include public benefit," he said.

Lawmakers proposed dozens of amendments to the bills, including changes that would protect churches and sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Much of the debate, however, had to do with the proposal to grant property owners compensation if zoning negatively affects their property.

Supporters of the measure say it would help level the playing field between average landowners and government agencies whose zoning actions hurt or restrict the use of land by owners.

"If government takes away your property, they should pay you for it, no ifs, ands or buts," said Rep. Tracy Edge of North Myrtle Beach and the bill's chief sponsor.

Opponents argued that the zoning-compensation proposal was driven by big developers, and it would stop zoning because of its expense and harm historic districts, which couldn't afford such compensation.

"The gut issue is money," Rep. Walton McLeod, a Newberry County Democrat, told House members. "If you want to protect your community, there is no way you can support this takings legislation."

But Rep. Joe Neal, a Hopkins Democrat who supports the proposal, said he was there on behalf of "average, rural, poor, working residents," whom he said have been "locked into poverty" by current zoning actions.

"This is about justice, simple justice," he said.

The House voted not to include the measure in the constitutional amendment. But attempts to strip it from the statutory bill later in the day failed.

Rep. Lewis Vaughn of Greer, who switched his vote, said his vote the first time was a mistake. He said he wasn't completely sure of the measure when he voted to keep it out of the constitutional amendment.

Other lawmakers also expressed confusion about the issue.

Rep. Wallace Scarborough, a Charleston Republican who led opposition to the compensation proposal, said afterward that supporters lobbied lawmakers over lunch. But he said many felt like having the measure in a statute and not in the Constitution would allow lawmakers to make changes if problems occurred.

Harrison said lawmakers wanted it in the state's Constitution to protect it from future changes.

Scarborough said he worries about the effect of the legislation on areas that have historic districts and on local governments.

"I believe we are letting these cities and counties down," he said.

House Speaker Bobby Harrell, however, said the legislation is good for property owners.

"This legislation makes it very clear that the government's power to take private property is severely restricted," he said.