Next week we'll have the first chance to discuss eminent domain on the floor. The bill, S. 1038, strengthens South Carolina's strictures on the use of eminent domain. The salient part of this bill is, "A mere public purpose or public benefit, including, but not limited to, the purpose or benefit of economic development, does not constitute the requisite public use for property to be condemned by eminent domain."
This eliminates the possibility of a situation such as that in Connecticut where the town took private property and gave it to a developer because, they said, the redevelopment would serve the public good.
I don't imagine that even the strongest proponents of big government will object to this, but you never know.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Wednesday 02.01.06
Happy Birthday Ann Bryant! Other than that, there's not much to report from the floor. We have no major legislation on the calendar that is not being held by one senator or another. Indeed, there are only two pieces of legislation without holds on them. This is the norm in the Senate. Despite the rules changes of 2005, a clogged calendar remains a way of life.
I would be interested to hear from ya'll on any subject of your choosing. I'd be especially interested in your thoughts on some of the upcoming races. Does anybody have a chance against Sanford? What about the Superintendent of Education--are all the candidates true reformers? Then there's my favorite electoral topic, Treasurer. You know I'm supporting Greg Ryberg, but I wonder what you think on this race. E-mail with your thoughts on these or any other issues. I look forward to hearing form you.
I would be interested to hear from ya'll on any subject of your choosing. I'd be especially interested in your thoughts on some of the upcoming races. Does anybody have a chance against Sanford? What about the Superintendent of Education--are all the candidates true reformers? Then there's my favorite electoral topic, Treasurer. You know I'm supporting Greg Ryberg, but I wonder what you think on this race. E-mail with your thoughts on these or any other issues. I look forward to hearing form you.
Monday, January 30, 2006
S. 997 update: Jessica's Law Plus
I have long been concerned that the penalties for the worst crimes against our most vulnerable citizens, children, carry far too light a punishment. Currently, criminal sexual conduct committed upon a child eleven or younger carries a mandatory sentence of only 10 to 30 years.
I cannot fathom the rationale in sentencing the rapist of a child as young as eleven, or younger, to not more than 30 years when the victim faces a lifetime sentence of fear and humiliation. I filed S. 997 to ensure that sentences for these unspeakable acts fit the crimes.
If passed, this bill will increase the penalty for sexual battery on someone 11 or younger to a minimum of 25 years to life. A second offense carries a minimum of life in prison and the option of imposing the death penalty. In fact, the last time South Carolina executed a criminal for something other than murder was 1972. He was convicted of rape.
Senator McConnell, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has assigned this bill to a subcommittee chaired by Senator Hutto with Senators Knotts , Jackson and myself. I have full confidence that they will give this bill a full and fair hearing, and should this new law face a court challenge I look forward to its review by our new and improved United States Supreme Court.
I’ll keep you posted on the developments with S. 997 and feel free to let me know your thoughts.
I cannot fathom the rationale in sentencing the rapist of a child as young as eleven, or younger, to not more than 30 years when the victim faces a lifetime sentence of fear and humiliation. I filed S. 997 to ensure that sentences for these unspeakable acts fit the crimes.
If passed, this bill will increase the penalty for sexual battery on someone 11 or younger to a minimum of 25 years to life. A second offense carries a minimum of life in prison and the option of imposing the death penalty. In fact, the last time South Carolina executed a criminal for something other than murder was 1972. He was convicted of rape.
Senator McConnell, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has assigned this bill to a subcommittee chaired by Senator Hutto with Senators Knotts , Jackson and myself. I have full confidence that they will give this bill a full and fair hearing, and should this new law face a court challenge I look forward to its review by our new and improved United States Supreme Court.
I’ll keep you posted on the developments with S. 997 and feel free to let me know your thoughts.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
S. 1090 Taxpayer Empowerment Ammendment
We have finally wrapped up the Charter School Bill, and thanks to the good work of Sen. Courson, Sen. Hayes, and the resistance of our Caucus some of the previous "miscommunications" have been removed.
On another front, I was proud to join some of my colleagues and the Governor in a press conference to announce the introduction of the Taxpayers' Empowerment Amendment. This legislation will allow voters to decide in November whether they want government spending capped at the rate of population growth plus inflation. I will bring you more details on this legislation in the coming weeks as it moves through the Senate. Below is a link to the full text of this resolution:
http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/1090.htm
Also, you may want to look at a recent editorial:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=67918§ion=editorials
I look forward to hearing from you on this and any other matter. Keep in touch.
On another front, I was proud to join some of my colleagues and the Governor in a press conference to announce the introduction of the Taxpayers' Empowerment Amendment. This legislation will allow voters to decide in November whether they want government spending capped at the rate of population growth plus inflation. I will bring you more details on this legislation in the coming weeks as it moves through the Senate. Below is a link to the full text of this resolution:
http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/1090.htm
Also, you may want to look at a recent editorial:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=67918§ion=editorials
I look forward to hearing from you on this and any other matter. Keep in touch.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Charter School Legislation Update
Well, we thought we'd wrapped up H. 3010, the charter school bill, when we left last night at about 8pm. But, as the old saying goes, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
Conservatives were told that the only changes in the compromise amendment concerned the makeup and location of the new charter school authority. We agreed not to create a brand new bureaucracy and also to house the new statewide charter school authority in the State Department of Education instead of in the governor's office.
But, when it took over an hour to draft these two changes into the amendment, I and others began to wonder. As it turns out, the defenders of the status quo and their allies slipped three major changes never previously discussed into the bill.
First, the provision allowing charter school students to participate in public school activities, such as band or athletics, was stripped. Senator Fair has fought for the fundamental right to equal treatment for charter school students for years. Unfortunately, opponents of simple equality snuck their designs into this bill.
Second, the opponents of charter schools extended the window for default approval of a charter school from thirty to sixty days. This existing law states that if a charter application to a local school board (not the new statewide entity) is not acted upon within thirty days, the application is automatically approved. Somehow, the current law got amended to sixty days, placing yet another burden upon charter applicants.
Third, as I have noted conservatives agreed to house the new statewide authority in the State Department of Education. But, in the drafting of the compromise amendment, somebody added the word "staffed" in that section. That effectively gives the very educrats so hostile to charter schools control over the new statewide charter school authority.
What happened here was a good old fashioned Shanghai. If you're not familiar with the origin of that term, it refers to people of the late 19th Century who went out one night in San Francisco and woke up on a slow boat to China. THey had been drugged or knocked out and loaded onto the boat as a crewmember. Their next destination would be Shanghai.
It just goes to show that defenders of the status quo will fight hard, fight dirty, and fight after the bell to keep their monopoly. Fortunately, the sharp staff in the governor's office caught the mischief overnight. We're going to reverse these things in the chamber today. I just hope it's not dark when we're done.
If you don't already know, you can follow the debate live at www.scstatehouse.net. Click on the senate video feed link. And feel free to write me during session. I'll answer as quick as I can. I have access to my e-mail (bryantk@scsenate.org) while on the floor.
Conservatives were told that the only changes in the compromise amendment concerned the makeup and location of the new charter school authority. We agreed not to create a brand new bureaucracy and also to house the new statewide charter school authority in the State Department of Education instead of in the governor's office.
But, when it took over an hour to draft these two changes into the amendment, I and others began to wonder. As it turns out, the defenders of the status quo and their allies slipped three major changes never previously discussed into the bill.
First, the provision allowing charter school students to participate in public school activities, such as band or athletics, was stripped. Senator Fair has fought for the fundamental right to equal treatment for charter school students for years. Unfortunately, opponents of simple equality snuck their designs into this bill.
Second, the opponents of charter schools extended the window for default approval of a charter school from thirty to sixty days. This existing law states that if a charter application to a local school board (not the new statewide entity) is not acted upon within thirty days, the application is automatically approved. Somehow, the current law got amended to sixty days, placing yet another burden upon charter applicants.
Third, as I have noted conservatives agreed to house the new statewide authority in the State Department of Education. But, in the drafting of the compromise amendment, somebody added the word "staffed" in that section. That effectively gives the very educrats so hostile to charter schools control over the new statewide charter school authority.
What happened here was a good old fashioned Shanghai. If you're not familiar with the origin of that term, it refers to people of the late 19th Century who went out one night in San Francisco and woke up on a slow boat to China. THey had been drugged or knocked out and loaded onto the boat as a crewmember. Their next destination would be Shanghai.
It just goes to show that defenders of the status quo will fight hard, fight dirty, and fight after the bell to keep their monopoly. Fortunately, the sharp staff in the governor's office caught the mischief overnight. We're going to reverse these things in the chamber today. I just hope it's not dark when we're done.
If you don't already know, you can follow the debate live at www.scstatehouse.net. Click on the senate video feed link. And feel free to write me during session. I'll answer as quick as I can. I have access to my e-mail (bryantk@scsenate.org) while on the floor.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Charter School Legislation
Today's debate concerns a bill, H. 3010, designed to create a statewide charter school district. The bill would create South Carolina Charter School District and thereby allow prospective charter schools another avenue to creation. This bill is necessary because although parents can currently form a charter school through their local school district, that rarely happens. Indeed, since the original charter school legislation passed in 1996, we have only 28 charter schools in existence.
Two reasons for this dearth predominate. First, only local boards can grant charters. Yes, the state board can hear appeals, but it can only remand decisions it disagrees with to the local board for the local board to rule again. Moreover, the state board hardly ever disagrees with a local board’s denial of a charter. The most frequent excuse used by boards to deny charters is racial composition. This seems disingenuous in the context that the places school choice is needed most are the urban and rural areas wherein the racial mix is already skewed. Despite the fact that the US government has given SC over $10m to study charters, we still have fewer than thirty. Effectively, the current Charter School law is impotent.
In a larger context, however, this debate (and their is one between conservatives and liberals) is not about strenghtening the charter school legislation in SC. It is about maintaining the status quo versus doing something that will improve the educational opportunities for all children in SC. Make no mistake as you follow this debate. Those who oppose the bill simply support the status quo. Those who support this bill want to move SC forward--and they want to move SC forward along lines already proven successful in other states. This debate really pits the minions of the State Department of Education against folks who realize that there has to be, and there is, a better way.
Two reasons for this dearth predominate. First, only local boards can grant charters. Yes, the state board can hear appeals, but it can only remand decisions it disagrees with to the local board for the local board to rule again. Moreover, the state board hardly ever disagrees with a local board’s denial of a charter. The most frequent excuse used by boards to deny charters is racial composition. This seems disingenuous in the context that the places school choice is needed most are the urban and rural areas wherein the racial mix is already skewed. Despite the fact that the US government has given SC over $10m to study charters, we still have fewer than thirty. Effectively, the current Charter School law is impotent.
In a larger context, however, this debate (and their is one between conservatives and liberals) is not about strenghtening the charter school legislation in SC. It is about maintaining the status quo versus doing something that will improve the educational opportunities for all children in SC. Make no mistake as you follow this debate. Those who oppose the bill simply support the status quo. Those who support this bill want to move SC forward--and they want to move SC forward along lines already proven successful in other states. This debate really pits the minions of the State Department of Education against folks who realize that there has to be, and there is, a better way.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Jessica's Law Plus
I will introduce legislation changing Jessica's Law to allow for the death penalty. Currently, Jessica's law involves sexual crimes against children. A first conviction will have a minimum sentence of 25 years without parole. A second conviction will get life. My bill will allow the prosecution the death penalty option in second convictions. By the way, the last time SC executed a non murderer was in 1972. The condemned man was convicted of rape.
New Taxes? Bill McAbee says NO
Upon a proposal for a new sales tax, my councilman, Bill McAbee stood his ground and voted NO. The resolution passed 5-2. Cindy Wilson joined McAbee. It would create a committee to make plans on spending the new money on our roads with matching funds from the state's infrastructure bank. Why can't government fund these projects with spending cuts elsewhere and from growth increases?
Protect Public Prayer
In the wake of several lawsuit threats on our city and county council, I will introduce legislation protecting any governmental agency in SC's right to public prayer without censorship. This is a state version of Congressman Gresham Barrett's federal bill.
Expect $300 new dollars next year
SC could see up to $300 new dollars in next years budget. I will join Sen. Richardson, Ryberg and others in legislation requiring any new money will go to either the trust funds or roads.
