Tighten Eminent Domain

Yes on Question 5 would protect S.C. property rights

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court upset millions with its ruling that state and local governments constitutionally can seize private property to transfer it to developers for economic development purposes. Americans had thought that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricted the power of eminent domain to construction of roads, schools and other clearly public purposes.

Fortunately, the high court invited state legislatures to propose more restrictions on the power of eminent domain than the Fifth Amendment allows. In response, the 2006 General Assembly put Question 5 on the Nov. 7 general election ballot.

Question 5, which deserves to become part of the S.C. Constitution, would bar the state and local governments from taking private property except for public use, and it says that economic development is not a public purpose. Private property could be condemned for redevelopment, with compensation for owners, only if it is blighted and dangerous - and only after S.C. legislators review such redevelopment proposals.

Some readers may stumble on that aspect of the ballot question. Slum clearance, after all, can be a valid public purpose. Moreover, the ballot question also would strip cities, towns and local housing and redevelopment authorities of slum clearance powers they have now. This provision could inspire S.C. legislators to delve more deeply into local affairs - a persistent problem in South Carolina.

As we have made clear on many occasions, we don't like legislative meddling in the affairs of local governments. But legislative review of the local exercise of the power of eminent domain is different.

What may seem a slum dwelling to municipal council members and planners can seem a palace - or at least decent shelter - to its owner. If a local government wants to seize such a property for redevelopment, legislators should be involved, just to make sure the local leaders are not perpetrating an injustice. In any case, local authorities will retain their power to clean up or condemn substandard buildings via enforcement of local codes. They don't need to seize the property to do that. Readers should not let this concern sway them from approving Question 5.

Their dominant concern should be to protect the rights of folks who own property that could increase in value (including taxation value) if it is redeveloped for some other purpose. Imagine, for instance, how much more valuable the land in residential neighborhoods near the ocean would become if local governments seized it, offer owners compensation, then rezone it for a higher use such as a resort-commercial condo-shopping center project.

The use of eminent domain for such a purpose is an abuse of government power, regardless of what the Supreme Court says. If developers want to make such use conversions of valuable land, let them purchase the property from willing owners at a price negotiated at arm's length. The Sun News recommends that readers vote yes on Question 5 on Nov. 7.