Gov. Mark Sanford did the right thing in vetoing a cap on property tax assessments.

Sanford took a long time in making his decision on a bill rushed through the General Assembly in the last hours of this year's session. Sanford used his time wisely. His veto is well researched and well reasoned.

Sanford correctly concluded that the bill is not constitutional. The constitution says property will be assessed on fair market value. A cap destroys that. The legislature proposed a 20 percent cap on assessment increases for tax purposes. A home with a value increase from $100,000 to $200,000 between assessments would be taxed at only $120,000. That's not fair market value.

Beyond that, the cap fails a fairness test. It does not treat all taxpayers equally. A number of studies have proven the obvious: the cap shifts the tax burden, it does not relieve the tax burden. It shifts it from the higher-priced property to the lower-priced property. That is not fair.

Beyond the studies, Sanford -- like the legislature -- had available to him a lower court opinion on a legal challenge to a cap put in place by Charleston County. Circuit Court Judge Victor Rawl ruled that the cap "unfairly distributes the burdens and benefits of tax relief without a rational basis."

That opinion, some two years in the making, is now on its way to the state Supreme Court. The governor's veto allows for that case to continue, which is wise. The legislature needs that court ruling to know how to proceed in addressing the property tax problem. The case should be allowed to be settled before any further action is taken.

Sanford also noted the artificial cap on property values would have rippling effects, especially for school funding. It would upset the state funding mechanism to the school districts because it is based in part on the local tax base. The artificially low tax base also would cramp the borrowing power of local governments.

And Sanford says the legislature didn't pass the bill properly because the voice vote in the Senate leaves undocumented the required two-thirds vote for approval.

The governor's veto will not make this issue go away, and it shouldn't. Soaring tax burdens, based on soaring property values, constitute a major problem for a lot of people. That number will grow rapidly as many more counties reassess property next year.

If the legislature wants to intervene in this local tax issue, it must do something that is fair across the board. It should first let the constitutional question be answered, which means the worst thing the legislature could do would be a quick override of the governor's veto.

A number of legitimate concerns have been put on the table. The legislature should take its time in addressing them.