|
|
email this
print this
reprint or license this
House OKs contested property rights bill
Measure requiring compensation in some zoning cases moves to Senate
By AARON GOULD SHEININ
asheinin@thestate.com
Land use laws and zoning codes could cost local governments millions of dollars under a property rights bill approved Wednesday in the S.C. House.
Lawmakers voted to require governments to pay land owners whose property is rezoned and, as a result, loses value.
The provision passed during a daylong, sometimes heated debate. It is part of a broad reform measure aimed at limiting eminent domain, the authority that allows private property to be taken for public use.
The bill goes to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future. Senators expressed concern that the House took what should have been a “slam dunk” to tackle one issue and made it far more complicated.
As written, the bill also:
• Tightens rules dictating when governments can condemn private property for public use
• Protects utilities from having to prove they have the right to condemn private property for transmission lines or stations
• Allows governments to continue using zoning to segregate strip clubs and other adult-themed businesses, away from churches
Lawmakers have been moved to act by a 2005 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Connecticut case that opened the door for governments to take property from private owners for private developers.
Known as the Kelo case, the decision raised hackles on lawmakers from California to Charleston. As a result, many states are moving to strengthen condemnation laws to protect local property owners.
But along the way, some House leaders saw the opportunity to revive the property rights debate they have fought and lost for 10 years.
Critics argued the measure will cost local governments millions, or prevent them from using zoning laws to prevent sprawl or protect existing property owners from unchecked growth. Supporters say private property owners deserve compensation when governments cause their land to lose value.
“We’ve protected property rights and provided ‘just compensation,’” said Rep. Ralph Davenport, R-Spartanburg. “It’s very citizen-friendly.”
But Rep. Wallace Scarborough, R-Charleston, who led the opposition to the measure, said the change would kill attempts by local communities to protect their own individuality. If this bill had been law over the past 30 years, Scarborough said, Charleston would not be what it is today — a historic city that has remained true to its values. That’s because, he said, the city used land use and zoning rules to prevent growth that did not match the community’s goals.
“In Charleston, we are very proud and happy with what we did with takings,” Scarborough said.
House Judiciary chairman Jim Harrison, R-Richland, and the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Tracy Edge, R-Horry, led the way to add the takings sections. Edge said if “government takes away your property, you should be compensated.”
But one Midlands community has learned that trying to protect one owner’s property rights can affect another.
Lexington County ran into such an issue last year. When Coldstream Golf Club in Irmo went bankrupt and closed, neighbors were surprised to learn the land the course was built on was zoned for high-density residential use, allowing apartment buildings, nursing homes and more within a neighborhood of single-family homes.
County Council, with the support of more than 100 residents, quickly moved to rezone the property to allow only single-family homes — to protect existing neighbors.
Under the House-passed bill, such a change would likely require the county to pay the course’s owner for lost revenue.
Although how much the county would owe is unclear, a 1998 study found that in the first year, similar legislation would cost taxpayers $126 million. Only about $25 million would go to compensate landowners. The rest would pay administrative and legal fees for cities and counties.
The controversial takings section almost did not survive the day. A Scarborough-led effort Wednesday morning killed the language from a proposed constitutional amendment.
Voters must approve changes in the state’s constitution to address the Supreme Court’s Kelo ruling, and Harrison, Edge and others wanted to amend the constitution to include the takings rules.
But with Scarborough and others thundering from the podium, the House voted to zap that part of the amendment.
Rep. Thayer Rivers, R-Jasper, said the takings language would “have an affect like the ripple you get when you drop a cannonball in a quiet pool. It just goes on and on.”
But by the afternoon, lawmakers apparently felt differently. When a companion bill came before the House, Scarborough’s effort to kill the takings section failed.
That means that, if adopted and signed by the governor, state law would require communities to pay for changes in land use rules. But the state constitution would not. Ultimately, then, it would be easier for opponents like Scarborough to change the law again.
It is not clear why lawmakers voted one way in the morning and differently in the afternoon. Scarborough suggested groups that opposed his amendment “lobbied very, very hard at lunch.”
Reach Gould Sheinin at (803) 771-8658.
Staff writer John O’Connor contributed.
.gif){kind=spacer}
