COLUMBIA - It took spirited rhetoric and a little arm-twisting from special interests, but when the dust settled Wednesday evening, the state House gave key approval to two bills that limit governments' ability to take property.

By an overwhelming vote, the House approved eminent domain legislation - one of the legislative session's top priorities - with a controversial "takings" provision that local planning advocates and conservationists fear could hurt governments' ability to control growth.

The provision requires local governments to reimburse landowners if a new regulation lessens property value.

"I think it could be very dangerous for Charleston if it passed the Senate as is," said Rep. Ben Hagood, R-Mount Pleasant, who expressed hope the Senate would reject such as measure as they have in the past.

Hagood and Rep. Wallace Scarborough, R-Charleston, were successful in eliminating the takings clause from a companion constitutional amendment but couldn't muster the votes to strip it from the statutory bill.

"Constitutionally, you can never go back and fix it," Scarborough said. "But thankfully, it's much easier to go back and fix a statute."

The issue split the powerholding Lowcountry delegation with Hagood, Scarborough and Charleston Republican Chip Limehouse voting against Speaker Bobby Harrel l, RCharleston, and House Majority Leader Jim Merrill, R-Daniel Island.

But in the end, most in the delegation voted in favor of the bill after Scarborough added a provision to exempt properties on the National Registry of Historic Places from the compensation requirement.

"I'm not happy with the bill because it's not doing what is needed to protect South Carolina," Scarborough said. "But I voted for it because we were able to get most of Charleston protected."

House lawmakers also made a few other last-minute changes to the statutory bill, including one that allows public utility companies and colleges and universities to retain their eminent domain powers.

Merrill fought ardently to not allow public utilities an exception, interrogating supporters and nearly screaming on the House floor about what he deemed "a hypocritical, special interest provision."

Still, the majority of the six-hour debate centered on the takings measure - another area where lawmakers think lobbying groups had their way.

After the first vote to remove that language from the constitutional amendment, lawmakers said a strong lobbying coalition went to work and was able to turn a 54-63 losing vote into a 81-33 victory.

The coalition was led by the Homebuilders Association of South Carolina, which coincidentally held its lobbying day and legislative reception Wednesday.

The accidental timing "didn't hurt," said Julian Barton, the group's lobbyist.

Still, he refused to take credit for the 27 lawmakers who switched to his side. "I wish I could control the General Assembly and make all these things happen, but I can't," he said.

Lawmakers who flip-flopped their votes offered varying reasons, but a good number said the information from lobbyists played a part.

"On the first vote, I just didn't have all the information," said Rep. Lewis Vaughn, R-Greer.

Rep. Ronnie Townsend, R-Anderson, said he "made a mistake and punched the wrong button."

Outside of lobbyists' influence, others credited lawmakers passionate speeches for the turnaround.

Harrell said Rep. Joe Neal's fervent speech helped bring Legislative Black Caucus members and Democrats to his side.

Neal, D-Hopkins, said he didn't deserve the credit. "I just said what I felt, that the voice of those most vulnerable (to property infringement) were not heard and heeded," he said.

Reach John Frank at jbfrank@postandcourier.com or (803) 799-9051.