islandpacket.com - The Island Packet Online

Search Everything in the Lowcountry and the Coastal Empire.

Property value cap misses mark on helping the needy

Cap casts too wide a net to get relief for longtime owners

Add Comment

On its face, a proposed state constitutional amendment to cap property assessment increases to no more than 15 percent over five years seems a good idea.

Rapidly escalating values make it difficult for some people to hold onto their homes. The adage "land rich, cash poor" is offered up.

But such a cap doesn't address the full equation used to calculate how much you pay in property taxes. It only addresses the value, not the tax rate, and therein lies the problem.

People whose homes are not rapidly increasing in value will bear the brunt of local governments using a smaller tax base than they would have had to raise the money they need to operate and pay debt.

Under the amendment, adjustments would be made to reflect improvements made to the property, a decline in value or the value of the property when it is sold.

Beaufort County took up this idea in 2004 and commissioned a study of what its impact on county property owners would be. The answer was not good.

The Strom Thurmond Institute study concluded that limiting assessments shifts the tax burden to people with lower-valued homes.

Supporters say capping home values would provide relief to long-term property owners and people on fixed incomes who might not be able to keep up with their tax bills because their homes are becoming more valuable.

But, in truth, state lawmakers took the easy way out. Instead of addressing the issue of ability to pay, they simply looked at property values. What they need to do is come up with relief for those who truly can't afford to pay their property taxes with some sort of means test -- a "circuit breaker" -- that would help those without the means to pay rapidly escalating property taxes.

The cap also applies to more than just resident homeowners. The proposed constitutional amendment makes no distinction between owner-occupied homes and second-home and investment property or commercial property.

Where is the fairness, as the Municipal Association of South Carolina points out, in providing tax relief to out-of-state residents at the expense of people who live here.

According to the association, two out of every three taxpayers in the state could end up with higher taxes if this amendment passes. And a homeowner won't see a tax break unless his home is worth more than $200,000.

Yes, local governments stand to benefit with unfettered assessments. A larger tax base means a greater ability to raise money, but it also can mean a lower tax rate to achieve that end. If government spending is the issue, address that. If lower-income property owners' ability to pay is the issue, address that.

Beaufort County voters need to look at this from a statewide perspective, not just what is happening here.

Don't take the easy way out. We urge you to vote "no" on Amendment 4.

Below are summaries of our position on the other statewide ballot questions:

• Amendment 1: The amendment to prohibit the state or local governments from recognizing any marriage but that between one man and one woman is discriminatory and legally unnecessary. State lawmakers in 1996 banned same-sex marriage in South Carolina and said such marriages from other states would not be recognized here. The amendment singles out a specific group of people and denies them privileges afforded to other residents of the state. It does little to nothing to shore up the institution of marriage. We urge you to vote "no."

• Amendments 2A and 2B: These amendments would change the rules on when the General Assembly can convene for business and when it can recess. The idea is to allow the House and Senate to run more efficiently by allowing the two bodies to recess when they otherwise would be sitting idly. We urge you to vote "yes" for both parts of this amendment.

• Amendments 3A and 3B: This constitutional change would allow the state to diversify its investment portfolio by permitting investments in international stocks. That is sound policy and is needed to improve the profitability of the state's retirement systems. The second part of the amendment would eliminate the State Retirement Systems Investment Panel, an advisory body. We urge you to vote "yes" for both parts of this amendment.

• Amendment 5: This amendment strengthens the state's already strong law and legal precedent on the subject of eminent domain. It would limit condemnation of property to "public use" rather than "public good." The idea is to not allow government to use its condemnation powers to take property for private use. It would not allow condemnation for economic development except for blighted properties found to endanger the community's health and safety. We urge you to vote "yes" for this amendment.