By Jennifer Jordan Charleston Housing News

Apparently, we’ve reached the point where private property owners managing their own parking lots is now considered the “Wild West.”

That was the characterization recently used during discussions by Mount Pleasant officials regarding parking around Shem Creek.

Think about that for a moment.

Businesses that own property, pay taxes on that property, maintain that property, insure that property, and assume liability for that property are now being viewed by some town leaders as part of a problem because they control parking on land they actually own.

Only in Mount Pleasant.

Increasingly, the town government operates as though property owners are merely tenants occupying land that ultimately belongs to Town Hall.

The irony is almost impossible to ignore.

Many of the same political leaders and activists who spent years fighting the Shem Creek parking garage project now appear concerned that private parking arrangements have become complicated.

What exactly did they think would happen?

For years, Mount Pleasant officials and political activists aggressively interfered with a privately funded solution to the parking problem. The result wasn’t more parking. It wasn’t better planning. It wasn’t improved public access.

It was litigation.

Expensive litigation.

Taxpayer-funded litigation.

A Charleston County court ultimately found the Town of Mount Pleasant breached its contract with Shem Creek Development Group and awarded more than $2.6 million in damages, plus attorney’s fees. Subsequent appeals added even more costs, interest, and legal expenses for taxpayers. (MVA Law)

According to court findings later discussed by the South Carolina Supreme Court, town officials engaged in what the court described as a “remarkable campaign of regulatory nitpicking” after public opposition emerged to the project. The court further noted that the town effectively paralyzed the development after previously entering into an agreement supporting it. (Justia Law)

Read that again.

A South Carolina Supreme Court opinion referenced a “remarkable campaign of regulatory nitpicking.”

That’s not language coming from a developer.

That’s coming from the court.

The town’s actions ultimately resulted in years of litigation, millions in taxpayer exposure, and countless hours of staff and legal resources that could have been directed toward transportation improvements, infrastructure, parks, police, or any number of legitimate public priorities. (https://www.live5news.com)

Now, after years of obstruction, the town appears surprised that parking around Shem Creek is fragmented among private owners.

Of course it is.

When government spends years blocking, delaying, and litigating solutions, the market adapts around it.

Private property owners do what private property owners always do. They manage their assets. They protect their customers. They control access. They hire parking companies. They establish rules. They attempt to maximize the utility of land they purchased with their own money.

That’s not the Wild West.

That’s private property.

The truly troubling part of this discussion is the underlying assumption that government should somehow control or heavily regulate parking on privately owned land simply because officials dislike how owners are managing it.

At what point does that stop?

Should restaurants be prohibited from reserving spaces for customers?

Should private lots be required to provide free parking?

Should businesses be prevented from recovering costs associated with maintaining parking facilities?

The logic quickly becomes absurd.

Shem Creek’s parking challenges are not the result of excessive property rights. They are the result of years of political interference, inconsistent planning, and government officials attempting to micromanage outcomes after previously helping create the problem.

What’s most remarkable is that the town is now preparing to spend additional taxpayer money researching ownership records and parking arrangements that have existed for years.

Officials estimate the effort could cost taxpayers between $10,000 and $15,000 just to begin untangling ownership and title issues around the creek.

Here’s a thought.

Instead of looking for new ways to regulate property owners, perhaps Mount Pleasant should spend some time reflecting on how much this entire saga has already cost taxpayers.

Millions in judgments.

Millions more in legal fees and interest.

Years of litigation.

Years of delay.

Years of political theater.

The Shem Creek parking situation is not evidence that private property owners have too much freedom.

It is evidence that government interference often creates the very problems it later claims it needs more power to solve.

Mount Pleasant doesn’t have a parking control problem.

It has a government overreach problem.

And taxpayers have already paid dearly for it.