S0848 would add a new section to the South Carolina Code to reserve to the General Assembly, rather than municipalities, the authority to impose taxes, prohibitions, restrictions, fees, or other regulations on the use, disposition, or sale of a “co-owned home.” The bill defines a co-owned home as a jointly owned residential dwelling in a municipality used for the owners’ use and enjoyment, and it defines residential dwelling broadly as a home or sleeping place used to the exclusion of all others.
The bill expressly preempts municipal ordinances that attempt to regulate co-owned homes in these areas, while preserving county authority. It also allows municipalities to regulate rentals of co-owned homes so long as those rules do not regulate the owners’ use or guests’ use without a guest fee, and it permits generally applicable land-use regulations that treat co-owned homes the same as other residential dwellings and do not classify them as commercial uses. The act would take effect upon gubernatorial approval.
Impact
If enacted, S0848 would limit municipal home-rule authority over a specific category of jointly owned residential property and shift policymaking power to the state legislature for taxes, fees, restrictions, and use/sale regulations affecting co-owned homes. It would also create a statutory preemption framework that could invalidate conflicting municipal ordinances, while leaving county regulation intact and preserving certain neutral land-use and rental regulations.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or vote-based sentiment in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a property-rights and anti-restriction bill, emphasizing transferability of real property and limiting what the sponsor views as burdensome local regulation.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s preemption of municipal authority, especially in municipalities that want to regulate co-owned homes through zoning, fees, or restrictions. Supporters would likely favor the bill as a protection for property owners and co-owned housing arrangements, while opponents may argue it removes local flexibility, could interfere with municipal housing policy, and may create uncertainty over what counts as a permissible land-use regulation versus a prohibited regulation of co-owned homes.
Similar To
A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 27-1-80 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT ANY REGULATION REGARDING THE USE, DISPOSITION, SALE, OR ANY IMPOSITION OF ANY PROHIBITION, RESTRICTION, FEE IMPOSITION, OR TAXATION OF A CO-OWNED HOME MUST BE DONE BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.