Rep. Vida Miller of Pawleys Island, the prime sponsor of legislation that would impose a 20 percent statewide reassessment cap, obviously recognizes there are serious legal questions surrounding that bill. She was quoted this week as urging the governor to sign the legislation, arguing that the legal challenge that is apt to follow would force the courts to clarify the options for property tax relief. But if the governor gives Rep. Miller her wish, he will delay, not hasten, the day the court settles this important issue.
Here's why:
Several years ago, the Legislature gave counties the right to impose a 15 percent local option reassessment cap. Charleston was the only county to exercise that option. In so doing, however, the county went beyond the authority granted by the state law and imposed the cap only on owner-occupied dwellings. The S.C. Supreme Court sided with protesting property owners who didn't get the cap, ruling that it had to be applied countywide. Left unsettled was the question of whether the cap itself is constitutional. The S.C. Constitution requires that property be assessed for tax purposes at fair market value.
Undeterred by the first illegal cap and a huge taxpayer refund, Charleston County was prepared to impose a countywide 15 percent cap until the city of North Charleston stepped in. The city has raised the constitutional question and the matter currently is before the Supreme Court. That's one of the many reasons why the governor shouldn't sign the Miller bill.
The Miller legislation not only imposes the 20 percent cap, it also eliminates the local option law that now is being challenged by North Charleston. While Rep. Miller is correct that the new law would immediately be challenged, it also would render moot the North Charleston lawsuit since it would strike the 15 percent local option law off the books. If that happens, all the work that's been done on the North Charleston lawsuit would have been for naught. A challenge to the new statewide law would have to start from scratch and could delay an answer from the high court for as long as another year.
Clearly, lawmakers from the coastal areas where property is appreciating the most are going to keep on pushing for some kind of assessment cap. And just as clearly, there will continue to be fierce opposition from those who will pay more taxes if a cap is imposed than they would without a cap. Indeed, the state Chamber of Commerce released a study this week that said most property owners fall in the latter category.
Because this is such a pocketbook issue, it will be the subject of litigation until the state's highest court gives a definitive ruling. The best way for Rep. Miller to get the clarity she says she is looking for from the courts is for the governor to veto the statewide bill and let the North Charleston case run its course.
Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/101604/edi_16edita.shtml