A bill filed in the S.C. Senate would block communities from ordering the removal of billboards without paying their owner.

If it becomes law, the bill could shackle Myrtle Beach's billboard restriction plan, which is already being fought in court by ClearChannel, the nation's largest billboard owner.

ClearChannel is suing the city because it ordered companies, at their own expense, to take down billboards violating city regulations.

"It's an end run around [Myrtle Beach]," said Jane Lareau of the S.C. Coastal Conservation League, which is fighting the bill.

Whether it impacts Myrtle Beach's regulations depends on the outcome of the lawsuit, the timing of the verdict and the final wording of the bill.

The city's conflict with billboard owners began eight years ago, when officials adopted new restrictions on the size, location and spacing of billboards.

Officials gave billboard owners seven years to remove or reconfigure more than 100 billboards that violated the new laws.

A day before the Oct. 10 deadline, the city's two largest billboard owners, Coastal Outdoor Advertising and ClearChannel, filed suit. Coastal, owned by Burroughs & Chapin Co. Inc., dropped out of the suit last week.

ClearChannel is demanding compensation for the signs' value and accuses the city of violating S.C. and U.S. laws concerning free speech and compensation for property.

So far, the city's resolve doesn't seem to be faltering. Last fall, under threat of the lawsuit, City Council refused to extend a deadline for removing the signs. Council members, citing the lawsuit, will not comment on the issue.

Attempts to regulate billboards, however, are opposed by the billboard industry and its allies in Columbia.

"They're bullies," Lareau said of the industry. "And they're well-connected. They go in and hammer a city or county that tries to oppose them until [the county or city] give up."

The bill, backed by Sen. Hugh Leatherman, R-Florence, would make it impossible for cities to order the removal of billboards, or any other nonconforming structure, without compensating the owner.

Though ClearChannel disputes this, S.C. law allows cities to order billboards to come down, as long as officials set a time limit.

Billboard industry lobbyists are strongly supporting Leatherman's bill.

Leatherman's son-in-law, John Hardee, is an executive with another billboard giant, Lamar Outdoor Advertising. He is also president of the S.C. Outdoor Advertising Association, a trade group.

In addition, Hardee serves on the S.C. Department of Transportation Commission. DOT administrators have twice blocked Myrtle Beach landscaping permits because of the city's stance on billboards. Hardee said he has never voted on rules affecting the billboard industry nor instructed a DOT employee to act in its interest.

Hardee said he had nothing to do with Leatherman's bill, though he would have an economic interest in the bill's fate.

Sen. Wes Hayes, R-York, chairman of the Senate Ethic Committee, said people are free to introduce bills benefiting a group they belong to as long as it's a large group.

Local government lobbyists and environmental groups oppose Leatherman's bill.

"We're watching it," Myrtle Beach City Manager Tom Leath said.

The DOT's roleis to regulate the billboard industry and to protect the rights of owners, according to Conway-based attorney Morgan Martin, who recently stepped down as DOT Commission chairman. Martin represented Coastal in the suit against the city.

City Council members have accused the DOT of playing favorites. Councilman Chuck Martino has called the DOT's actions "blackmail."

ClearChannel is willing to discuss a compromise, according to attorney Marguerite Willis of the Columbia firm Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs and Pollard LLC.

The company is willing to remove some signs while improving others, she said. The company has also offered the city free tourism advertising in other cities.

The (Columbia) State contributed to this report.Contact DAVID KLEPPER at dklepper@thesunnews.com or 626-0303.