Have you ever thought of your home, neighborhood or business as "blighted?" Your concept of blight may be entirely different from that of the local government. Ever since the shocking Supreme Court decision on Kelo vs. New London, property owners have been put on notice that basic property rights are in jeopardy by the government's manipulation of terms such as "blight," "public purpose" and "eminent domain."
In the Kelo case, the Supreme Court sided with the City of New London, Conn., to condemn an existing neighborhood in order to tear it down and build another residential development that would produce higher taxes for the city. The 15 or so homeowners who did not want to sell were given no choice. According to Justice Stevens this was done for the good of the community.
Some think this egregious use of eminent domain would never happen in South Carolina, due to protective language in the state constitution and the state code of law. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The lack of precise definitions for the terms "blight," "public use/purpose," and "just compensation" allow governing bodies too much discretion in using their power to condemn.
The 2006 South Carolina legislative session grappled with this issue, but loopholes remain. The South Carolina constitution authorizes the use of eminent domain for private uses (economic development) in order to remove blight. Blight, however, is loosely defined and could be twisted to serve the purposes of an aggressive city or county council determined to raise revenues. City of Columbia and Richland county residents should be on alert as their local governments look for new ways to increase tax revenues, especially since many downtown properties are going off the tax role in light of USC's expansion.
Property rights vs. eminent domain has been a front burner issue in many states this year. Georgia has enacted comprehensive legislation that protects private property rights and limits the use of eminent domain. Blight is clearly defined, and property owners have the right to a jury trial if they believe they are not justly compensated for their property. The Georgia legislation also includes buy-back provisions if, after five years, the property has not been utilized.
Private property rights are a fundamental and integral part of our cultural and economic foundation. Our basic liberty and freedom depend upon them. Chipping away at the edges of this foundation by expanding the government's power of eminent domain only weakens the free market system and ultimately leads to collapse. The people of South Carolina deserve stronger protections from a rapacious government continuously in search of higher tax revenues.
Sincerely,
Henry Clay
Publisher
This Issue