Bills to protect property rights at odds

By AARON GOULD SHEININ

Staff Writer

Governments would have to compensate owners of private property that is rezoned under a House bill introduced Tuesday.

The plan, which could limit local government’s ability to manage growth, comes as lawmakers in the House and Senate, along with Gov. Mark Sanford, take aim at protecting property rights.

The moves are in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that broadened governments’ ability to take private land for public purposes using eminent domain.

But leading senators said the House effort makes a mess of the issue and threatens to kill “what should be a layup.”

The court ruled in June that local governments could seize private property and give it to another private owner if the action is of public benefit.

The ruling is important, as it greatly widens governments’ ability to take private property. As a result, more than 30 states are working to strengthen eminent domain laws to specifically answer the court’s ruling in the case, Kelo vs. City of New London.

At a State House news conference, Sanford and legislative leaders said they would work to protect S.C. property owners.

The ruling, “means we have to act now to protect property that people have invested money, work and time into,” Sanford said.

A Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Charleston, narrows the definition of “public use” so as to limit the reasons government could use to condemn property.

The House version also deals with eminent domain, but goes further. It would require governments to pay property owners if a land use change, such as zoning, would decrease the property’s value. The only exception is if a government moves to prohibit nude dancing.

Rep. Tracy Edge, R-Horry, the bill’s primary sponsor in the House, agreed with Harrell. Edge said voters, if given the chance, would approve.

Senators, including Campsen, Larry Martin, R-Pickens, and Judiciary Chairman Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, said the two issues are separate and ought not be in the same bill.

“I’m scared that (House) bill is controversial and could easily bog down eminent domain reform,” McConnell said.

Campsen said he supports the idea of what the House is doing, but not its method.

Addressing Kelo, Campsen said, “should be a layup.” But the House bill “could endanger that reform. It’s too important to let it fail by trying to combine the two.”

House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, is a cosponsor of the House bill. He said he doesn’t see a difference between the two proposals.

“Whether you’re taking property by regulatory means or outright seizing it, it still has a direct effect on the value of what someone owned,” he said. “If government is going to take property, then government ought to pay for it.”

That’s already the law, said Jimmy Chandler, executive director of the South Carolina Environmental Law Project.

“The constitution already says if government takes property it has to pay for it,” Chandler said. “That’s been the law of the land since the 1780s.”

The House bill, he said, “goes way beyond that and says no community can ever protect itself from obnoxious uses without paying for it.”

The Coastal Conservation League and the Sierra Club both criticized House leaders for using the Kelo decision to handcuff local governments.

A spokesman for Sanford said the governor had not been able to study the two versions and could not address senators’ concerns.

Reach Gould Sheinin at (803) 771-8658 or asheinin@thestate.com.

email this

print this

reprint or license this