Just in case today’s column by Associate Editor Cindi Scoppe didn’t quite convince you as to how indefensibly irresponsible the S.C. Legislature was last week in smooching the billboard industry’s big ol’ fat behind, here are two additional pieces of information.
The first is Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto message on the billboard bill — a document that lawmakers obviously took no time to read before overriding his laudable action.
The second item will be the roll-call votes in both the Senate and House.
Here’s the governor’s veto message:
R. 233, H. 3381–ORDERED PRINTED IN THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER ordered the following veto printed in the Journal:
February 21, 2006
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I believe that we must always stand fast against the government taking or regulating away the use of property. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." Private property rights are fundamental to a free society, and I appreciate your efforts to address them in H. 3381.
The protection of private property rights is also essential to our market-based economy. Recognition of those rights provides the legal certainty necessary for individuals to commit resources to ventures. And those rights provide the basis for the development of financial markets that are essential for economic growth and development.
For these reasons, I have consistently acted to protect private property rights and fight unnecessary government regulation. For example, as a member of the 106th Congress, I voted for the Private Property Rights Implementation Act to give greater access to federal courts for individuals with property grievances against the government. In March 2004, I vetoed S. 560, the Life Sciences Act, in part because it extended the awesome power of eminent domain to dozens of new entities by including all state institutions of higher learning. In May 2004, I signed into law H. 4130 – commonly referred to as "The Small Business Regulatory Relief Act" – to require state agencies to consider their impact on small business before they issue final regulations. In June 2005, I vetoed S. 97 because it opened the door for more property, including agricultural, to be declared blighted or abandoned and subsequently condemned.
Given the importance of protecting private property rights, I recognize the need for a uniform approach to takings that is consistent with the overall purposes of the just compensation provision of Article 1, Section 13 of the South Carolina Constitution. Unfortunately, for the three specific reasons set forth below, I do not believe H. 3381 represents that uniform approach.
In my judgment, at least part of the reason why H. 3381 is not a consistent approach to the question of takings stems from the fact that the public debate on this particular bill has taken place in the narrow context of special legislation affecting one particular industry – an approach to legislative debate which, in my opinion, does not fit with the spirit of Article III, Section 34, IX of the South Carolina Constitution, which provides that: "In all other cases where general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted …"A broader public debate on the issue of just compensation for takings is now taking place in the General Assembly in connection with the eminent domain bills pending in the House and Senate (H. 4502, H. 4505, S. 1029, S. 1030 and S. 1031), and it is my hope and expectation that the three specific concerns I have in regard to H. 3381 will be considered as that broader public debate moves forward. Accordingly, I am hereby returning H. 3381, R. 233 without my approval for the following reasons:
First, the bill would not treat billboard owners and billboard tenants as we treat other property owners and other business tenants. This bill seeks to level the playing field by putting billboards on par with other asset classes but actually serves to set billboards apart. H. 3381 would treat billboards as real property for compensation, while they would be con-sidered as personal property for taxing purposes.
As a matter of public policy, I believe billboards should be treated as we treat other property owners, but not put in a position superior to homeowners, farmers and other businesses. Currently, billboard owners pay personal property taxes based on the sign’s original cost less depreciation, and accordingly, just compensation is determined in the same way. Likewise, if the government takes a home to build a road, one value system for real property is applied for taxes and compensation. In effect, H. 3381 would give billboard owners the tax benefits of being classified as personal property and the just compensation benefits of being classified as real property which is not something enjoyed by the other asset classes just listed.
Second, I do not think that we should have one standard for state government and another standard for local government. H. 3381 would establish a double standard in that the new compensation requirements for removing billboards would apply only to local governments, not state agencies.
Again, I think we ought to treat government at different levels consistently. Under H. 3381, local governments are held to a higher standard than the state when calculating just compensation, in that local governments are required to utilize the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices, including a number of mandatory considerations, when calculating the amount of just compensation due the billboard owner, whereas the state is not. I do not believe it is good public policy to maintain two sets of pricing – one for state government and another for local governments. I think when we look at something as fundamental as private property rights they should be consistently administered.
Third, I think we need to be careful about saying we believe in Home Rule as a governing principle, but then reverse local governments’ decisions when they disagree with the state on an issue like this one. With a retroactive effective date of April 14, 2005, the bill would invalidate at least seven billboard ordinances that were passed legally by local governments. I believe that tossing out the ordinances of one group of local governments while respecting the ordinances of others – both of which were passed subject to the laws in place at that time – raises once again the uniformity issue that has caused me to struggle with this bill. Why should two local governments, under the same circumstances and afforded the same privileges of Home Rule, be treated differently?
Finally, as a matter of consistency, I believe that this bill undermines the very principle it purports to represent. By limiting the use of billboards by owners, certain provisions of this bill essentially constitute a regulatory taking without providing for just compensation – quite the opposite, I believe, of what the bill seeks to achieve. In keeping with the notion of federalism, I believe that all levels of government have to more clearly define their roles and responsibilities, and the way a community looks and feels should fundamentally be a local municipal or county decision. I do not believe it is the role of the state legislature to determine community standards from Columbia by regulating the content of billboards in the many towns and counties across South Carolina.
For these reasons, I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval H. 3381.
Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor
Having pointedly, insultingly ignored that, here’s how the lawmakers voted (and if you’d like to find out how to contact individual lawmakers, go here for senators and here for House members; if you’re not sure which ones represent you, look it up here):
The 28-13 roll call by which the South Carolina Senate voted to override Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto of a bill making it harder for local governments to force the removal of billboards.
A "yes" vote was a vote to override the veto, and a "no" vote was a vote to let the veto stand.
Voting "yes" were 9 Democrats and 19 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 8 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
Not voting were 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans.Democrats Voting "Yes"
Anderson, Greenville; Elliott, North Myrtle Beach; Ford, Charleston; Land, Manning; Matthews, Bowman; Moore, Clearwater; Patterson, Columbia; Reese, Boiling Springs; Williams, Marion.Republicans Voting "Yes"
Alexander, Walhalla; Bryant, Anderson; Cleary, Murrells Inlet; Cromer, Prosperity; Fair, Greenville; Grooms, Bonneau; Hawkins, Spartanburg; Knotts, West Columbia; Leatherman, Florence; Martin, Pickens; McConnell, Charleston; O’Dell, Ware Shoals; Peeler, Gaffney; Rankin, Myrtle Beach; Ritchie, Spartanburg; Ryberg, Aiken; Scott, Summerville; Thomas, Fountain Inn; Verdin, Laurens.Democrats Voting "No"
Drummond, Ninety Six; Hutto, Orangeburg; Leventis, Sumter; Lourie, Columbia; Malloy, Hartsville; McGill, Kingstree; Sheheen, Camden; Short, Chester.Republicans Voting "No"
Campsen, Isle of Palms; Courson, Columbia; Gregory, Lancaster; Hayes, Rock Hill; Richardson, Hilton Head Island.Not Voting
Democrats: Jackson, Hopkins; Pinckney, Ridgeland; Setzler, West Columbia.
Republicans: Mescher, Pinopolis; Smith, Greer.—————————————————————————–
The 78-25 roll call by which the South Carolina House voted to override Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto of a bill making it harder for local governments to force the removal of billboards.
A "yes" vote was a vote to override the veto, and a "no" vote was a vote to let the veto stand.
Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 49 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans.
Not voting were 6 Democrats and 14 Republicans.Democrats Voting "Yes"
Allen, Greenville; Anderson, Georgetown; Anthony, Union; Branham, Lake City; G. Brown, Bishopville; J. Brown, Columbia; Clyburn, Aiken; Cobb-Hunter, Orangeburg; Coleman, Winnsboro; Govan, Orangeburg; Hayes, Hamer; J. Hines, Lamar; Hodges, Green Pond; Hosey, Barnwell; Howard, Columbia; Jefferson, Pineville; Jennings, Bennettsville; Kennedy, Greeleyville; Mack, North Charleston; McCraw, Gaffney; Moody-Lawrence, Rock Hill; J.H. Neal, Hopkins; Neilson, Darlington; Ott, St. Matthews; Phillips, Gaffney; Rhoad, Branchville; Rutherford, Columbia; F.N. Smith, Greenville; Vick, Chesterfield.Republicans Voting "Yes"
Altman, Charleston; Bailey, St. George; Barfield, Conway; Cato, Travelers Rest; Ceips, Beaufort; Chalk, Hilton Head Island; Chellis, Summerville; Clark, Swansea; Clemmons, Myrtle Beach; Coates, Florence; Cooper, Piedmont; Davenport, Boiling Springs; Delleney, Chester; Duncan, Clinton; Edge, North Myrtle Beach; Frye, Batesburg-Leesville; Haley, Lexington; Hamilton, Taylors; Hardwick, Surfside Beach; Harrell, Charleston; Harrison, Columbia; Haskins, Greenville; Hinson, Goose Creek; Hiott, Pickens; Huggins, Columbia; Leach, Greer; Littlejohn, Spartanburg; Mahaffey, Lyman; Martin, Anderson; Merrill, Daniel Island; Norman, Rock Hill; Perry, Aiken; E.H. Pitts, Lexington; M.A. Pitts, Laurens; Rice, Easley; Sandifer, Seneca; Simrill, Rock Hill; Skelton, Six Mile; G.M. Smith, Sumter; G.R. Smith, Simpsonville; W.D. Smith, Spartanburg; Talley, Spartanburg; Taylor, Laurens; Thompson, Anderson; Townsend, Anderson; Tripp, Mauldin; White, Anderson; Witherspoon, Conway; Young, Summerville.Democrats Voting "No"
Battle, Nichols; Bowers, Brunson; R. Brown, Hollywood; Emory, Lancaster; Funderburk, Camden; Kirsh, Clover; McLeod, Little Mountain; Miller, Pawleys Island; J.M. Neal, Kershaw; Rivers, Ridgeland; J.E. Smith, Columbia; Weeks, Sumter; Whipper, North Charleston.Republicans Voting "No"
Agnew, Abbeville; Ballentine, Irmo; Bannister, Greenville; Brady, Columbia; Cotty, Columbia; Hagood, Mt. Pleasant; Limehouse, Charleston; Lucas, Hartsville; Scarborough, Charleston; D.C. Smith, North Augusta; Toole, West Columbia; Umphlett, Moncks Corner.Those Not Voting
Democrats: Bales, Eastover; Breeland, Charleston; M. Hines, Florence; Mitchell, Spartanburg; Parks, Greenwood; Scott, Columbia;
Republicans: Bingham, West Columbia; Dantzler, Goose Creek; Herbkersman, Bluffton; Loftis, Greenville; McGee, Florence; Owens, Pickens; Pinson, Greenwood; Sinclair, Spartanburg; J.R. Smith, Langley; Stewart, Aiken; Vaughn, Taylors; Viers, Myrtle Beach; Walker, Landrum; Whitmire, Walhalla.
Related Posts
Brad, the legislators know that this is a non-issue for 99% of voters. The people of the state have no interest in this subject, other than perhaps those who own the billboards and property, and the greenies who would eliminate all billboards. It does appear that there may be a distortion of our state constitution and the governor can pursue remedy that way. My rep and my senator both voted NO on overriding the veto so I can’t complain from my area too much. But I agree that it is unfair and illegal to have the billboard owners pay ONLY personal property taxes yet their valuation is at the market price of the land. It does seem that a large percentage of the beach, Columbia, Greenville, and Charleston reps went with the industry on this. Chances are there is some campaign money flowing in their direction.
Perhaps we should try something such as the following on the state level.
How Clean Money, Clean Elections Campaign Reform Works
The Clean Money, Clean Elections (CMCE) approach is designed to provide a clear alternative to the current system of raising and spending largely special-interest money to finance election campaigns. It allows qualified candidates to run for public office without compromising their independence since they won’t have to ask for money from those with a vested interest in public policy. The system is completely voluntary and candidates who do not wish to participate are able to raise and spend private money for their campaigns, as they do today.
Let’s try this instead:
How Clean Money, Clean Elections Campaign Reform Works
CMCE is a nice idea, but it can’t work because the “big-money” candidates will always outspend the “good guys” (actual new candidates). What we face is the huge and well entrenched political machine of the PRC’s. That would be “Politicians, the Rich and Celebrities”. To beat them, of course, would require leveling the playing field. Since the good guys could never raise the money the PRC’s do, campaign money has to be made equal for all.
The only way this could be done is to have public funding of all elections along with private donations made to one, central election campaign fund which is dispensed equally to all candidates. Filing fees (a LARGE, but sensible amount) would be paid by each candidate by individual or private money so long as all donors/sources are made public.
I know full well the PRC’s currently in office would never allow such to happen, so they have to be voted out. How? Only via the write-in process. Just a few to start with until actual, real representatives gained a majority. Would take time, but it’s obvious Democrats and Republicans will make no good changes for the people.
I hope the earlier comment that this is a “non issue” for voters is wrong. I don’t consider myself a “greenie” but I would like to be able to ride down our streets without the sky being obliterated by these huge signs advertising everything from Chinese buffets to erectile dysfunction. I typically pay no attention to the subject matter of the billboards, just the fact that they are unsightly. I can’t imagine any reputable business resorting to this method of advertising. If I had a choice, I would not patronize the businesses who purchase this advertising. In some instances you can, in other instances (such as SCANA,etc.) you can’t because they are a monopoly. In my opinion the only people benefiting from billboards are the billboard industry and land owners….oh, and I almost forgot, our legislators. They should all be ashamed. Gov. Sanford got this one right!
Billboards are private property, and most are on private property, as attachments to real property.
The takings clause of the U.S. Constitution requires just compensation when the government takes or destroys private property. Such takings are supposed to be for “public use”, but that has been expanded by judicial fiat into “public benefit”.
The State cannot ban all signage, because signage is a form of free speech, especially signage with a political message.
Billboards are somewhat different than most property, in that the only reason they have value is due to the public roadway nearby. The legal argument can be made that the state, having created the value, has the right to order it diminished when the property becomes a public nuisance.
This has been done with the billboards and signs which used to be around some of our Civil War battlegrounds.
At this point, it is up to the legislature to clean up some of these public nuisances, and prevent future ones, and let our Attorney General defend the laws in court.
I did enjoy Cindi’s column, the tone — the simmering outrage — was entirely appropriate, and most of her analogies are right on.
My only quibble is that her comparison of the legislature’s behavior to that of prostitutes is quite a slap at prostitutes. After all do not the ladies of the night (and no, I will not refrain from being sexist here) provide their services in private, out of public view? They seem to have a great deal more propriety than what the majority of our solons demonstrate.
I even expect to see billboards that read as follows:
Brad’s first post on the billboard topic. got me into Burma Shave mode. I therefore suggest the following for those interested in a grassroots’ response:
Sorry.
I left the [blockquote] on again.
Can we get a list of the money paid to each legislator for his/her vote?
Do we almost agree on something?
Mike and Dave: What do you propose that we do?
Just curious.
My rep and senator voted with the Governor on the billboard issue.
I emailed them before the vote.
I have really no where to complain but I have emailed other reps and senators on the issue but they have just ignored my respectful emails.
Does anyone know how Joel Lourie voted? I didn’t see his name among the votes after scanning the information a couple of times. I have assumed that he voted to override, since he didn’t respond to my email. My House Rep sided with Govenor Sanford.
G.E. Brazell
Senator Lourie voted with the Governor.
He is my senator.
My house rep is Bill Cotty and he also voted with the Governor (to sustain the veto)
Rep Cotty explained to me he supported a limited bill but that wasn’t what the House or Senate passed so he sided with the Governor.
Joel Lourie voted “no,” which the article says was a vote to let the veto stand. His name is in the middle of the second row, of the section titled “Democrats voting No,” in the Senators group.
Mark, you, Mike C. and me could begin to riot and burn cars and billboards to vent our rage. However, since the French aren’t running the country I don’t think we would prevail for very long going that route.. In a way it may be a blast to burn a few billboards that I find annoying!!!!!
To be serious though, I don’t have a clue other than to email the reps and senators, but then again both of mine went with the governor. How about a giant, really ugly billboard in a strategically placed location? Any ideas on that.
Obviously we can’t shame these people into doing the right thing-maybe we need new representatives. At this point, I’m up for electing a whole new legislative body-regardless of their party. Our representatives undoubtedly feel beholden to special interests. I want some kind of real campaign finance reform that kicks paid lobbyists out of the State House and that levels the playing field among candidates. Conservatives and liberals would go for that. Good people won’t run for office the way it is now-who could blame them. I wonder if Brad would support something like that.
David, thank you for pointing out Sen. Lourie’s vote. My middle-aged (make that old) eyes must be failing me!
I see that Rep. Edge (Horry Cty.) has a op-ed piece in today’s The State saying how valiant the legislature was in passing this bill. In my opinion, it is a huge leap to equate protecting the billboard owners and the landowners who rent space along our public highways with the larger issues of eminent domain. I’m hope he can sleep at night knowing that he the the others voted against the wishes of the majority of their constituents. If Horry County wants to litter it’s road with these unsightly signs, let local government manage it, not our state legislature.
A totally new legislature would be great, but you know it “ain’t gonna happen”. Not with the two party system we now have. Not with Republicans and Democrats replacing Republicans and Democrats. The only way is a massive write-in campaign as I noted above. Nobody is going to do a thing about the sorry PRC’s we have in office except “post, talk and yap” about it. Then we’ll all go along to the polls in November and vote for more of the same.
Term limits would get rid of the worst offenders.
But, term limits won’t happen either because why …. ? Because the current “legislators” won’t vote for them and it would take a constitutional amendment, wouldn’t it? Only getting rid of a majority of current “legislators” and replacing them with real representatives of the people would do the trick.
” see that Rep. Edge (Horry Cty.) has a op-ed piece in today’s The State saying how valiant the legislature was in passing this bill. In my opinion, it is a huge leap to equate protecting the billboard owners and the landowners who rent space along our public highways with the larger issues of eminent domain”
That column shows you that the average House member thinks most of us are totally stupid.
If you read that column fast, it almost makes sense. If you read it and consider it, you realize he is saying billboard outfits are exactly the same thing as Joe Homeowner losing his home and property to a new condo development.
Stupid argument and column by Rep Edge.
You guys have got to be prepared for the long haul. Little movements here and there, including a third party of more or less honest folks and capable representatives. I’m not sure it can be done — and new parties often turn out to be as bad as the old ones, but Brad’s idea is still worth a try. Or maybe not. Maybe a reform movement within one of the two biggies. But either way, it will be a slow, long, uphill, slog. I’m not sure there are enough people around with the committment to make it work, but maybe I am too pessimistic.
To the editor:
In reference to the commentors who responded regarding Representative Edge (R)-Horry. Mr. Edge, as you report in your comments wrote an oped column for one of the newspapers in South Carolina praising the stance of the General Assembly and specifically the House of Representatives for overriding the Governors veto on the billboard legislation.
It is interesting to point out to you all that Mr. Edge is Vice President of the Burroughs and Chapin Company in his home county and that among the company’s varied holdings they own Coastal Outdoor advertising.
If Mr. Edge did in fact vote for the billboard legislation–which he probably did; their is a conflict of interest and someone should ask for an investigation.
Brad, Herb, what ever happened to Paul DeMarco? Paul was very interested in reform movements. On this billboard vote, the money is doing all the talking. This whole BB episode confirms to me why the governor should be re-elected. He is NOT governing by the dollar, but by principles and conviction. Every decent, honest, person of conscience should be in his corner. Obviously even the GOP insiders would work against him but the PEOPLE really like and trust this guy.
I’m only interested in reforming campaign finances in order to obtain better representatives. The Governor’s policies are in no way vindicated by his one good decision. There are plenty of good people willing to serve who are not libertarians given a better system.
APJ – Good points.
I looked it up. Rep Edge is indeeed VP and Coastal has over 850 billboards from Tabor City, NC to Charleston.
Funny how he left that out of his article in The State paper.
The State paper should disclose that fact. They could do a better job of putting that info out there on their guest columnist. A lot of newspapers put that type of info at the end of their guests columnists.
Do Mark Whittington and Herb have any ideas for coming up with campaign finance reform and/or a “new party”?
I don’t know, GS. Sometimes I think of running a “campaign” for governor myself, under the Unparty banner. I put “campaign” in quote marks because it wouldn’t be a real campaign. I can’t get involved in real campaigns; it’s a condition of my employment.
But maybe I could write columns saying that if I were elected governor — not that I’m going to ask anybody to vote for me or anything (like our Founders, I think that’s sort of tacky) — here are some things I would do.
That would get the ideas out there in a prominent way — lots of people do still read newspapers, you know — and in a way that might be sort of fun. You can say all sorts of true things when you really, really don’t care to be elected.
Then, if anybody actually wanted to vote for me, or ask someone else to vote for me, that would be up to them. I wouldn’t have anything to do with it. Who knows? I might get five or six votes statewide. And I would appreciate every one of them. I just wouldn’t ask for them beforehand.
So Brad:
Is a follow up article warranted on this issue now that has been revealed and proven that a conflict of interest exists for Rep. Edge on this Billboard legislation?
BW,
I think your thoughts are worthy of a try. What you are proposing is actually a “write-in” campaign. If you “run” under a party banner, then you’re subject to all the rules, regulations and money requirements of party candidates. Write-in is much easier and less restrictive. Basically, someone else (one or many) do all the campaigning for you. You might inspire others to do the same. Enough votes taken away from the regular PRC’s, Dems & Repubs, would at least get some attention and might even win an office or two. At least it would be a start toward unseating the “status quo”.
As usual, letters to the editor are now filling in readers of The State on the real story about Rep. Edge.
Yep, Lee, that’s why we ran it. It provided useful information. Do you suppose that letters to the editor get into the paper by themselves? I don’t get your point.
And I don’t get what APJ is getting at, either. One of my associate editors has already slammed lawmakers for their "whorishness" on this issue, and I gave up my Sunday column slot so she could do so in the most prominent position in my power. Is that language not strong enough for you? And the entire point of this post was to give you detailed information on exactly who had voted for this, and how you could contact them. What do you want that we haven’t done? Do we need to go out and whack somebody? Could somebody translate for me here?
This is as odd as when somebody recently said they’d never seen us criticize the lottery. What planet had THEY been on?
You get my point: professional journalists would be embarassed to constantly have their readers correct them and their favorite opinioneers for slovenly errors and deliberate omissions of fact.
The State only criticizes the lottery because it sees the lottery as a source of revenue instead of the tax increases they constantly push.
Just a test, BW.
My test link
blogspot.com”>WRITEIN-SC
WRITEIN-SC
passable day!
I yearning that chose the set subdivision of it for asking your inconceivable, if not, sorry.
I do not awfully ordinarily go to the forums. And my, my pull someone’s leg doubts is what is:
How do you deliberate on how sober the tough nut to crack of guerdon increases, and whether it is practical far-reaching shock,
the actuality that already incident, namely: Rising subsistence guerdons has transformed subsistence into an ecumenical gremainingnmental issue.
Riots pull someone’s leg erupted in Egypt, Haiti and Bangladesh in excess of soaring subsistence tolls.
People fought one another closed bags of rice in West Africa.
The causes and the solutions to the grub turning-point are complex.
Iif not finical and you pull someone’s leg your notion on this, entertain come back, I am unundoubtedlyably interested to pick up your notion.
Tthank you
P.S. Sorry for my english.
Welcome to an Internet site. Our Internet site for you constantly we do the repayment and sale used cars online. We have more than 7000 used cars online from the USA, Canada and Japan. To send the demand for acquisition second-hand ???? it is possible as in a mode online, having taken advantage of an Internet site and by phone or e-mail. To pass to lists
Accessible second-hand cars take advantage of following references…