House OKs eminent domain package

ROBERT W. DALTON, Staff Writer
Published March 16, 2006

COLUMBIA -- The state House on Wednesday pushed through a pair of bills aimed at protecting private property rights.

The eminent domain package includes a constitutional amendment and a meat-and-potatoes bill that spells out who can take property and for what reasons.

Eminent domain -- a government's ability to acquire private property without the owner's consent -- became an issue across the country because of a June 2005 Supreme Court ruling. In the case of Kelo vs. the City of New London, Conn., the high court said that local governments could take private property and give it to a private developer if a project benefited the public.

The House bill, like the Senate bill approved earlier, makes a simple change in the existing law. Instead of taking private property for a "public purpose," governments would only be allowed to take the property for "public use." The agency would be required to "own, operate and retain control" of the property.

But the House bill goes a step further, requiring local governments to compensate owners if a regulatory change -- such as a land-use ordinance -- reduces their property's value. Most of the debate, in fact, centered on the bill's "regulatory takings" provision.

The House removed the provision from the constitutional amendment that it passed Wednesday morning, but kept it in the statutory bill approved Wednesday evening.

Opponents of the takings measure waged a two-pronged attack against it. Some said it would force local governments to pay big sums to developers if a land-use ordinance prevented the developer from building a shopping center or a subdivision, while others contended it would prevent municipalities from protecting residents from undesirable land uses.

"We're taking away the rights of communities to decide what they want," said Rep. Bill Cotty, R-Columbia. "This puts us in the hands of big developers and big dollars."

Rep. Joe Neal, however, in an impassioned speech argued that eliminating the takings provision would harm the "little guy."

"It angers me and it frustrates me that in all these discussions no one is talking about the average South Carolinian having the value of their property stripped away," said Neal, D-Hopkins.

Rep. Scott Talley, R-Moore, sided with Neal. He said that the House would fail to fully protect private property rights if it removed the regulatory takings provision.

"It's yours today," Talley said. "But you're just a (land-use) change away from having it taken."

Reps. Phil Sinclair, R-Woodruff, and Harold Mitchell, D-Spartanburg, voted to remove the provision from the constitutional amendment but changed course and supported the measure in the statutory bill.

Both said they split their votes because any unforeseen consequences of the takings regulations would be easier to deal with if the provision was limited to the statutory bill.

"I was very reluctant to enshrine it in the constitution," Sinclair said.

House members carved out an exception for utilities, saying they should be shielded from paying heavy compensation costs when they are required to provide service. They also included an exemption for communities trying to protect churches from "undesirable" neighbors.

Rep. Bob Walker, one of the bill's primary sponsors, said he was pleased with the finished product.

"My whole goal was to make sure that governments couldn't take peoples' property for private use," said Walker, R-Landrum. "I think what we did was fair and protects property owners."

Robert W. Dalton can be reached at 562-7274 or bob.dalton@shj.com.