How is the S.C. General Assembly like an SUV? Rollover hazard strikes hard at public interest
By Bill Settlemyer
Executive Publisher
You might call it poetic injustice. A good 20 years ago, I was active as a civic leader and journalist in the fight to control billboard blight in Charleston County. I wrote several guest columns on the subject that were published in The Post and Courier and was asked to serve on a “Blue Ribbon Committee” to help the county develop a sign ordinance.
Our group was a good mix of business and civic leaders, including representatives from local sign companies that mainly provided on site signage for area businesses. We came up with a sensible and effective ordinance compatible with one passed earlier by the city of Charleston.
As a result of those efforts at the city and county level, there are at least some constraints on the proliferation of billboards in our region.
Practically speaking, the compromise reached was that billboards remained on main urban highways, such as Interstate 26, but came down or were barred from going up in other areas, including the scenic rural parts of Highway 17.
Gone were the signs advertising liquor and cigarettes in low income neighborhoods, as well as a number of billboards in the historic district that stood out like a sore thumb.
Of course, nothing will ever stop a well-funded special interest group from pursuing its economic interests, as proven by the shameful legislation recently enacted by the General Assembly.
In passing what ought to be called the “General Assembly Billboard Rollover Act,” a large bipartisan majority in the House and Senate ignored both a public outcry against the legislation and Gov. Mark Sanford’s well- reasoned veto.
The governor, hardly an opponent of “private property rights,” pointed out that this gift to the billboard industry not only ignored the principle of home rule and local control, but also gave billboard owners the best of two worlds: If a local government “took” their property by requiring signs to come down, the signs would be valued as if they were appreciating real property, potentially running the required compensation up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
But for property tax purposes, the signs would be appraised at their much lower value as personal property, providing an ongoing tax break if the signs really should have been valued as real property.
And just for good measure, the law was made retroactive to last April, effectively overturning local ordinances passed since that time.
Some lawmakers indignantly claimed they were just being good conservatives by “protecting private property rights.”
Come on guys, give us a break.
Warning signs
In 1990, the FBI conducted an undercover sting on the General Assembly known as “Operation Lost Trust.” Bribes were offered in exchange for votes, and 27 people were convicted or pleaded guilty to drug and corruption charges.
New ethics legislation followed, and more constraints were placed on the relationship between lobbyists and legislators.
In the current situation, there’s no evidence of misconduct from a legal standpoint, but that hardly makes the General Assembly’s billboard rollover acceptable in terms of public policy.
After all, their job is not merely to avoid misconduct; it’s their duty and responsibility to represent the people and public interest.
Ominously, the billboard law may be an early warning sign of much worse to come.
A recent guest column in The Post and Courier by Charleston businessman and civic leader Hugh C. Lane Jr. warns that a pending “regulatory takings” bill could be a disaster for the state.
The bill, sponsored by Tracy Edge, a representative from Myrtle Beach, nobly describes the goal of “just compensation for land use,” but Lane says the bill should be called the “bail out program for land speculators.”
In the same recent issue of The Post and Courier, there was a report of other Grand Strand legislators sponsoring a bill to allow a Myrtle Beach condo project to build a swimming pool seaward of the high water mark, an action otherwise prohibited by state law. “We’re just trying to accommodate an old family that is doing a project,” said one of the legislators.
Right.
Property rights and wrongs
The confluence of rising special interest influence in Columbia and a misguided overemphasis on protecting private property rights at the expense of the public interest is a dangerous brew.
As Hugh Lane rightly pointed out in his column, we depend on the power of local zoning laws and other regulatory measure to preserve our quality of life as a community as well as our own property values.
You wouldn’t want a mini-storage facility built next to your home in a residential area, and the reason you can be sure that won’t happen is that local zoning laws strike a balance that ensures some order and logic in the way property is developed and used.
Think about it: If that mini-storage facility were allowed to be built next to your home, what would that do to your property value and your rights as a private property owner?
Hugh Lane is right to sound alarm bells, but his warning about legislation “that could do irreparable harm to our communities, our economy and our environment” should be extended beyond the specific legislation addressed in his column.
The balance of power in the General Assembly appears to be shifting rapidly in favor of special interest groups and away from the public interest.
Voters should heed the warning signs and take a hard look at where their senators and representatives stand on these issues.
View as PDF
|
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version