August 2001
Contents

Message From the Executive Director
  .  Education: A Large Part of What We Do

Conservation Easements:
  .  Fariview Farms Preserved
  .  Four Columns Property Preserved
  .  Paris Mountain Property Preserved
  .  Sloan Family Grants Conservation
Easement on 200 Acres of Land In
Southern Greenville County

Conservation Bank Act
  .  Conservation Bank Act Stalls in Legislature

Green Development
  .  New Directions in Land Use and Design
  .  Upstate Forever's Green Schools Initiative

Staff, Board, Members and Volunteers
  .  Kris Yon, Leon Patterson, Keith Marrero Join Upstate Forever Board of Directors
  .  Staff News and UF Field Trips

CONSERVATION BANK ACT STALLS IN LEGISLATURE

The Poinsett Bridge in northern Greenville County, the state's oldest bridge, is one of the many significant properties in South Carolina that would have been eligible for protection if the Conservation Bank Act had passed. But the Bridge and its surrounding lands remain in serious jeopardy

When the South Carolina General Assembly convened last January, we had high hopes for the Conservation Bank Act, one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation in our state's history. The bill would provide regular and significant funding for the acquisition and protection of parks, greenways, prime farmlands, historic sites, ecologically sensitive areas, valuable wildlife habitat, and other special places in South Carolina.

     The source of the funds would be a portion of the state's share of the deed recording fee, which is collected every time real estate is sold in the state. It is an eminently sensible way to fund conservation efforts (and one widely used throughout the country) because the fee is collected in transactions that often involve the development of land. So why not use the fee to conserve some of the state's special places? The bill would have provided an estimated $10 million to the Conservation Bank in the first year, with funding levels projected to increase as South Carolina continues to experience rapid development. Additional funding would be generated through the sale of "Conserve South Carolina" license plates. A 15-person board of directors would make grants or loans from the Bank for projects that meet the "conservation criteria" and "financial criteria" set forth in the Act. Funds could be used both for acquiring title and for purchasing easements.

     The bill was supported by a wide range of groups and organizations, including the South Carolina Association of Realtors, the South Carolina Farm Bureau, the Palmetto Agribusiness Council, the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, the South Carolina Tourism Council, the Nature Conservancy, the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and Upstate Forever. Indeed, several legislators said they had never seen such broad based support for a bill.

     Nonetheless, the bill stalled in the House of Representatives, where opponents filed more than 70 amendments in an effort to aggravate and wear down the supporters. The strategy worked. With time running out in this year's legislative session and the budget and lottery issues still not resolved, the House decided to carry the bill over to next year. But at least the legislation will not have to start all over again. In January, the debate will pick up right where it left off, with consideration of the pending amendments. The House essentially hit the "pause button" on the bill until next year.

     What especially hurts is that a solid majority in the House supports the bill. Before debatewas adjourned, the full House voted on a "poison pill" amendment that would have eliminated all funding for the bill-in other words, to establish a Conservation Bank with no money! The amendment was defeated by a vote of 59 to 40, confirming the strong support that the bill enjoys in the House.

     The opponents made three basic arguments against the bill. First, some contended that in view of the State's budget difficulties, no new programs should be funded. But it was for this very reason that funding of the Conservation Bank would not have begun until next year andeven then, the estimated funding level of $10 million is less than two-tenths of one per cent of the state's budget.

     The second argument was that conserving land will "erode the tax base." This contention is fallacious for a number of reasons:

• Numerous studies have shown that property adjoining parks, greenways and other preserved land appreciates significantly in value, substantially offsetting the loss of tax revenues.

• Much of the land that would be protected through the Conservation Bank Act is rural property, which generates a relatively small amount of property taxes for local governments. Conservation easements will simply ensure that the character of the property is not changed. Hence there should be little or no reduction in the property taxes presently paid on such land.

• Conservation is just as important to an improved quality of life for our citizens as economic development-a fact recognized by the overwhelming majority of SouthCarolinians. In a statewide poll conducted last year by the University of South Carolina Institute of Public Affairs, over 80 per cent agreed that "protecting the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of slowing down economic growth." Almost the same percentage supported establishing greenbelts around cities and buying land for more parks. The Conservation Bank Act is an effort to strike a reasonable balance between conservation and development in our state.

• Tourism is now one of South Carolina's most important industries. People come from allover the world to visit our state's special places. It is economically essential that we preserve and protect these places, and the Conservation Bank Act will go a long way toward achieving that goal.

     The third argument was that the Conservation Bank Act would give local governments the incentive to "down zone" the use of private property, after which landowners would have no choice but to sell their properties at reduced prices. Wow-where did they come up with that one?! The Conservation Bank Act is 100% voluntary. Landowners do not have to even talk about their property unless they want to. If there are concerns about local zoning, those should be dealt with in a separate bill. The Conservation Bank Act has nothing to do with land use regulation. As Representative Chip Campsen, the bill's author, wrote in a Greenville News guest editorial on May 9: "The Conservation Bank Act respects property rights by dealing exclusively with willing sellers. Its pricing mechanism dictates that the public will bear the costs of conservation done for its benefit. This stands in opposition to the regulatory approach, where conservation costs are borne solely by regulated landowners."

     Many thanks to all of the Upstate Forever members who took the time to write and call their representatives. Your support made a big difference! For the rest of this year, proponents need to keep building support for the Conservation Bank Act and to continue rebutting the specious arguments made by the opponents. And then in January, we need to be ready to launch another major, statewide effort to have this bill signed into law.