email this
print this
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
House passes limits on eminent domain
By Seanna Adcox
The Associated Press
COLUMBIA - The House approved legislation Wednesday that limits government's power to take property and requires that property owners be compensated if a zoning change or other regulatory decision reduces the value of their land.
The bills' chief sponsor, Rep. Tracy Edge, R-North Myrtle Beach, called it a "clear victory" for property rights.
The House approved two bills. One puts the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in November. The other specifies how the law would change.
The measure was a response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last June in a Connecticut case that allowed a government to take older homes for a private developer to build offices. a hotel and a convention center.
The 5-4 ruling broadened what property can be condemned, allowing it on the basis that the public benefited because the development would increase the town's tax base.
"We want to make it crystal clear that public use does not include public benefit," said Rep. James Harrison, R-Columbia.
Lawmakers have repeatedly said they don't think South Carolina's courts would make such a ruling now.
"Nobody knows who will be on the Supreme Court in five years, ten years," Harrison said.
The debate, put off for weeks, continued into the evening as lawmakers offered dozens of proposed changes.
Lawmakers broadly supported limiting condemnation powers but disagreed over whether governments should be required to pay someone for zoning decisions.
Governments and conservation groups opposed requiring payment for zoning decisions, saying it would make community planning and preservation too expensive.
"You're taking away the ability of cities and counties to pass ordinances that will protect historic sites and protect everything we hold near and dear in South Carolina," said Rep. Wallace Scarborough, R-Charleston.
Lawmakers said many small towns and rural counties across the state have yet to approve zoning regulations, and the bill would make it too expensive to ever do so because they'd have to pay developers for what could have been built there.
Stopping a mobile home park could cause a tax increase, said Rep. Thayer Rivers, DRidgeland. Rep. Chip Limehouse, R-Charleston, called it the "no developer left behind act."
Scarborough eventually succeeded in removing the regulatory takings portion from the constitutional amendment, which requires two-thirds approval from voters. But his efforts to remove it from the proposed law failed.
"If government takes away your property, they should pay you for it, no ifs ands or buts about it," Edge said.
"A taking is a taking is a taking. We either need to be on the side of property owners or on the side of the long arm of government."
Lawmakers approved changes that would protect churches and property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. They also exempted utilities from the compensation portion, which Republicans and Democrats called a hypocritical change.
House Majority Leader Jim Merrill, R-Daniel Island, said lawmakers were letting lobbyists guide their decisions.
"To say everything cities do to devalue property is bad, but co-ops are good because they provide power ... is the height of hypocrisy," said Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia.
"If they run a power line through somebody's yard, they ought to pay for it just like cities and counties. Be fair."
The House approved two bills. One puts the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in November. The other specifies how the law would change.
