Current Status Introducing Body:House Bill Number:4854 Primary Sponsor:L. Martin Type of Legislation:CR Subject:Outdoor advertising signs, removal of Residing Body:Senate Computer Document Number:CYY/19248.SD Introduced Date:May 14, 1992 Last History Body:Senate Last History Date:Jun 02, 1992 Last History Type:Introduced, placed on Calendar without reference Scope of Legislation:Statewide All Sponsors:L. Martin Huff Jennings Beasley J. Harris Kirsh Type of Legislation:Concurrent Resolution
Bill Body Date Action Description CMN
---- ------ ------------ ------------------------------ ---
4854 Senate Jun 02, 1992 Introduced, placed on
Calendar without reference
4854 House Jun 02, 1992 Adopted, sent to Senate
4854 House May 19, 1992 Recalled from Committee 24
4854 House May 14, 1992 Introduced, referred to 24
Committee
View additional legislative information at the LPITS web site.
INTRODUCED
June 2, 1992
H. 4854
Introduced by REPS. L. Martin, Huff, Jennings, Beasley, J. Harris and Kirsh
S. Printed 6/2/92--S.
Read the first time June 2, 1992.
TO REQUEST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BRING AN APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT TO HAVE THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION ACT WHICH REQUIRE NONCONFORMING OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS TO BE REMOVED DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Whereas, under the federal Highway Beautification Act which was passed in 1965, outdoor advertising signs which were lawfully erected but do not conform to the requirements of the Highway Beautification Act are required to be removed to the extent that federal funds are made available to participate in paying the costs of compensation to the sign owner; and
Whereas, in 1991, the Congress enacted the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act which provides funding for the federal share of the compensation for the acquisition of these nonconforming signs and as a result South Carolina and the other states are now required to purchase nonconforming signs to comply with the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 or risk the loss of certain federal highway funds; and
Whereas, it is estimated that nationwide there are approximately 92,000 nonconforming signs which must be removed and most of these signs have been in place since 1965; and
Whereas, under the United States Constitution, no person may be deprived of his private property without just compensation and without due process of law; and
Whereas, the manner in which compensation to the owners of these signs which must be removed shall be paid under the federal law raises the question of whether or not this will be full and complete compensation for their loss. For example, it appears that the sign owners may not receive any compensation for the lost profits they will incur because of a decrease in the amount of business they will do because of a lack of these signs; and
Whereas, there is also authority under federal case law that unreasonable and lengthy delays in some cases deprive a citizen of his right to due process of law and to delay enforcing these provisions of the Highway Beautification Act for almost thirty years certainly raises the question of whether or not an owner of a sign now required to be removed, which he has been allowed to use for almost thirty years, has received due process of law; and
Whereas, the members of the General Assembly, by this resolution, request the Attorney General of South Carolina to challenge in federal court the constitutionality of these provisions of the federal Highway Beautification Act and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act on the above grounds and for the above reasons. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the members of the General Assembly hereby request the Attorney General of South Carolina to bring an appropriate legal action in federal court to have the provisions of the federal Highway Beautification Act which require nonconforming outdoor advertising signs to be removed declared unconstitutional.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Attorney General of South Carolina.