|
|
The case, which will determine whether the town lives or ceases to exist, hinges on whether a law that allowed James Island to incorporate in 2002 is unconstitutional.
The law allowed the town to tie together smaller "doughnut holes" by crossing over marshes and waterways already claimed by the city of Charleston. The city sued, however, claiming that the law is unconstitutional special legislation because it does not generally apply across the state and was drawn just for James Island.
Frances Cantwell, an attorney representing the city, said the law is special legislation, "pure and simple."
The law applies in few if any other places, she said. It provides a benefit peculiar to James Island and causes harm peculiar to Charleston, she said.
"James Island needed a bill that would let them cross marshes ... that's exactly what they got," she said.
Chief Justice Jean Toal questioned why the law allows marshes and waterways to be shared, but not other places such as parks or roads. "What makes marshes so special?" she asked.
Cam Lewis, an attorney for the town, said there are plenty of reasons to treat marshes differently. Marshes and waterways can be annexed without permission from anyone, which can create a barrier for areas hoping to annex. They also are treated differently by state law, he said.
Ultimately, the city has the burden of proving that there was no rational basis to treat marshes differently, Lewis said. That's a high hurdle, he said. "Did you ever try to prove something was wholly irrational? That's a very difficult thing to do."
Cantwell said the law clearly is irrational, in addition to being illegal and unfair to Charleston.
"If ... I'm bounded by a railroad track, I can't reach out to my neighbor," she said. "But if I'm bounded by a marsh, I can, and that makes no sense."
Lewis said the law was needed because cities such as Charleston sent out long "fingers" of annexed property along marshes and waterways. Those fingers had the effect of blocking areas from incorporating, he said.It was part of an "aggressive" annexation policy, he said.
"The people that live in the city of Charleston think everybody wants to live in the city of Charleston," Lewis said. "They don't."
Another issue is whether the law applies only on James Island. Toal noted that the court overturned a law that was written generally but in practice only applied to Myrtle Beach.
Under state law, residents wanting to form a new town close to an existing city must ask to be annexed first, unless there would be more than 15,000 people in the town.
Only James Island had to use the law to connect enough areas to reach 15,000 people, Cantwell said. Lewis said that other potential municipalities in areas outside Conway, Greer and Summerville could form towns using the law, however.
Charleston won the case at the circuit court level. The city also won a case against an earlier version of the town that ended its existence.
The oral arguments came close to packing the relatively small courtroom. Charleston Mayor Joe Riley attended, as did James Island Mayor Mary Clark and a busload of other James Island residents and officials.
Copyright © 2004, The Post and Courier, All Rights Reserved