City votes to condemn private property
By John Temple Ligon
Temple@TheColumbiaStar.com

Bill Gregg's threatened six acres included here at the corner of Millwood and Gervais.

The Queen of England visited the site of Jamestown recently to commemorate the 400th anniversary of its founding. On May 14, 1607, the Virginia Company explorers/entrepreneurs landed on Jamestown Island to establish the English colony.

The original 108 settlers came over as part of a business deal, an understanding about ownership of property and the rights to hold property. The Virginia Company was a private enterprise that failed. In 1624, the King of England revoked the Virginia Company Charter, and Jamestown became a crown colony.

In 1670, the philosopher John Locke and his employer Anthony Ashley Cooper finished their "Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina," again an understanding about ownership of property and the rights to hold property. Carolina was founded with proposals of enlightened freedoms concerning property and religion, better than what was available in England. In other words, property guarantees were expected to attract settlers.

The First Nazareth Church faces Bill Gregg's cleared six acres from across Gervais.

Property guarantees attract investment toda, as they attracted settlers and investment in the seventeenth century. In June 2005, a frightening decision by the U.S. Supreme Court threatened property owners nationwide. The Kelo decision gave an American city the green light to seize private homes and businesses for the purpose of handing over the property to the city's preferred developer to realize the city's preferred plans.

In June 2006, Governor Sanford signed an eminent domain bill, creating an eminent domain study committee, part of eminent domain reforms aimed at protecting S.C. property owners from government property takings.

Changes in the state constitution included an eminent domain amendment, part of which said: "Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, private property shall not be taken for private use without the consent of the owner, nor for public use without just compensation being first made for the property. Private property must not be condemned by eminent domain for any purpose or benefit including, but not limited to, the purpose or benefit of economic development, unless the condemnation is for public use."

A second half to the amendment might still pass. That language identifies the remedy of blight as justification for condemnation.

The City of Columbia voted 4-2 May 16, 2007, to proceed with condemnation on six acres at the southwest corner of Gervais and Millwood. The sole purpose of the condemnation was to effectuate the East Central Consortium Catalyst plan as proposed by F. A. Johnson, developer.

Johnson's plan is not challenged. The city's condemnation is what will be challenged and assuredly stopped unless the law changes.

The owner of the property, Columbia's Bill Gregg, has been assembling the parcels for more than 10 years, but his plans don't jibe with the city's plans through their preferred developer.

The city attorney stood in council chambers last Wednesday, May 16, to tell city council they could not condemn. He admitted they could move to condemn, but in the end they would not prevail.

So why bother? If the city does not have the law on its side, why in the world is the city going ahead with condemnation proceedings with the assured result of failure, the assured result of no property changing hands?

The city promised people the property and its well- publicized development plan of the property.

It's a show. That's all.

The country and the state began with property rights, and the country appears to be prospering as it holds property rights dear.