JAMES ISLAND RULED ILLEGAL AGAIN

For the second time in a decade, the S.C. Supreme Court has pulled the plug on the town of James Island, ruling Monday the law that let the town incorporate was unconstitutional.

The court's unanimous decision spells the end for this version of the town, which was incorporated in 2002 and which never emerged from a legal cloud during its short life.

Town officials let loose a volley of criticism of the ruling, which comes eight years after the court killed the first version of the town.

"This is just ridiculous that people can't have self-determination," said James Island Mayor Mary Clark. "I really did not think that we would lose this one."

The decision is a major victory for the city of Charleston, which sued the town both times it formed.

The town's existence would have blocked the city from growing through annexation and adding to its tax base. Charleston officials also said the town created an unnecessary extra layer of government on the island, part of which is in the city.

Charleston Mayor Joe Riley hailed the decision.

"For the city of Charleston and the Charleston community, it's very significant," he said.

"We all share the same community of interests, and I am committed to working hard for the common good of all."

The ruling, which upheld a lower court's decision, adds more fuel to the long-running animosity between some town backers and the city of Charleston.

"I was born in the city of Charleston," said James Island resident Leo Simonin. "Now I'm ashamed of it."

The town's downfall has its roots in the demise of the first town in 1996. Then, the court ruled the town illegally crossed marshes and waterways already in the city. The crossings allowed the town to connect several separate pieces of land.

Town backers then successfully lobbied the General Assembly for a law allowing municipalities to share marshes and waterways. Finally, in a 2002 referendum, town voters overwhelmingly decided to try again.

This time, the city's suit argued the law was unconstitutional special legislation because it did not apply everywhere in the state.

The court agreed, noting the law did not allow municipalities to share highways or parks or other similar areas.

"It's pretty clear you can't have different rules for different cities," said Frances Cantwell, an attorney representing the city in the case.

The town can ask the court to reconsider the ruling. Town Council will meet today to discuss options, but Clark said she does not believe this version of the town can remain alive.

That doesn't mean town backers will give up. Clark vowed to try again.

"I will go for a third time," she said. "Anyone in America that wants self-determination should have it, and it should not be taken away by any power who wants to take them over. I will work for self-determination until I die."

For the town to get another chance, the General Assembly would have to take another stab at rewriting the laws on incorporation.

That effort has already been under way. A bill that would have removed restrictions on creating new cities next to existing cities passed the Senate this year before stalling, and town backers have powerful allies in the Legislature.

Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell said he was disappointed in the court ruling and pledged to push for legislation that would allow the town to form again.

"I will do everything I can to restore their right to self-determination," he said. "Mayor Riley will not ultimately succeed in blocking the formation of this town."

That effort will draw stiff opposition, city officials said.

Cantwell said any law that affected municipalities across the state would not have an easy time.

"I'm not sure if the rest of the cities in the state would take it sitting down," she said.

"Legislation like that will not pass," said Riley.

Town supporters are undeterred.

Clark said she plans a campaign to draw attention to the town's situation.

"This will go nationwide now," she said.

A number of factors drove the initial push to create the town, which included about 20,000 residents.

In addition to self-government, town backers pointed to development, traffic and other issues.

Town supporters said Charleston has allowed development to run rampant, spoiling their suburban island. City officials, however, note most people on the island do not live in the city, so plenty of development took place before any annexations.

Some of the sentiment for the town mingled with anti-Riley feelings. Cars still sport "Just Say No to Joe!" bumper stickers.

Feelings about the decision ran hot Monday.

"Might start the militia around here again," said Simonin. "It's getting to that point, believe me. It's tough to have your rights taken away from you."

He and others gathered at James Island Town Hall after hearing of the ruling.

"We want our own government over here," said town resident Scott Stengel. "We don't want to pay for the aquarium."

Not everyone on James Island supported the town, however. Some voted against incorporation, and two island residents joined the city in the suit against the town.

The town's demise has a number of practical consequences. The town has about $3 million in the bank, said Clark.

Much of that money likely will be divided among local governments. A number of governments complained the town was taking away local option sales tax money they otherwise would have received, although town officials said their residents were entitled to their share of the funds.

Unlike the first town, which had more than a dozen employees, the second town has only two, said Clark.

The ruling will not affect the basic services islanders receive. The James Island Public Service District provided services such as garbage pickup and fire protection to town residents and will continue to do so.

The town had been hampered by the earlier decision by the lower court. The judge in the case allowed the town to continue to operate but warned town officials to act with restraint.

Still, Clark said, the town had an impact on the island. She said it was able to get roads paved and ditches cleaned and was able to control development by lowering densities. Also, it simply gave residents a voice, she said.

Clark said she would like to continue using the building that is now James Island Town Hall as a home for the next incorporation effort.

The town will hold a special meeting at 7 p.m. today to discuss the situation and options.

Copyright © 2004, The Post and Courier, All Rights Reserved

Jason Hardin covers the city of Charleston. Contact him at 937-5549 or at jhardin@postandcourier.com.