Lexplug logoLexplug

WDW PROPERTIES v. City of Sumter

Supreme Court of South Carolina
342 S.C. 6, 535 S.E. 2d 631 (2000)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Government-sponsored financing for private commercial and retail redevelopment projects in designated blighted areas serves a valid public purpose under the state constitution, even if it provides an economic advantage to a private developer and creates competition for other businesses.


Facts:

  • The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development declared an area in Sumter, South Carolina as an urban 'empowerment zone', making it eligible for tax-exempt bond financing.
  • The City of Sumter subsequently designated its downtown, located within the empowerment zone, as a 'slum and blight area' and a 'redevelopment project area'.
  • A developer, Uptown Synergy, planned a $4.3 million project to renovate three historic buildings within this area for commercial and retail use.
  • The South Carolina Jobs-Economic Development Authority (JEDA), a state agency, agreed to issue $2.5 million in tax-exempt revenue bonds to finance a portion of Uptown Synergy's project.
  • Under the plan, JEDA would loan the bond proceeds to Uptown Synergy, which would repay the loan with revenue generated by the project; no taxpayer funds were pledged.
  • The tax-exempt nature of the bonds provided Uptown Synergy with a lower interest rate than it could obtain through conventional financing.
  • WDW Properties owns a competing commercial property, Liberty Square, which is not located in the empowerment zone and is therefore ineligible for such government-sponsored financing.
  • Uptown Synergy's new development would compete directly with WDW Properties' Liberty Square for tenants and patrons.

Procedural Posture:

  • WDW Properties filed a declaratory judgment action in a South Carolina state court of first instance, challenging the legitimacy of the JEDA loan program.
  • The case was heard by a master-in-equity in a bench trial, with facts being stipulated by the parties.
  • The master-in-equity rejected WDW’s claims and ruled that the loan program served a valid public purpose.
  • WDW Properties, as appellant, appealed the master's decision.
  • On the parties' motion, the Court of Appeals transferred the case directly to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state-sponsored loan program, which uses the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds to fund the renovation of private commercial and retail properties in a designated blighted urban area, serve a public purpose as required by the South Carolina Constitution?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Waller

Yes, the state-sponsored loan program serves a public purpose. The public purpose doctrine is an evolving concept that reflects the changing needs of society, and the court gives substantial deference to legislative determinations of public purpose. Applying the four-part test from Nichols v. South Carolina Research Authority, the court found the program satisfies the constitutional requirement. The ultimate public benefits are job creation and the revitalization of an economically distressed downtown area. While the private developer benefits from a favorable loan, the public is the primary beneficiary. Although any redevelopment project is speculative, it is not so speculative as to be unconstitutional. Finally, the public interest is likely to be served to a substantial degree. This decision explicitly overrules prior precedent that prohibited issuing revenue bonds for retail or commercial businesses, reflecting a broader, modern view of economic development as a valid public purpose.



Analysis:

This case significantly broadens the 'public purpose' doctrine in South Carolina, allowing state agencies to use tax-exempt revenue bonds to finance private commercial and retail projects for urban renewal. It marks a decisive shift away from a stricter interpretation that limited such financing primarily to industrial projects, as established in cases like McLeod. The court's adoption of a more deferential standard to legislative findings and its formal application of the Nichols test provides a clear framework for future economic development initiatives, empowering local governments to combat urban blight by partnering with private developers, even if it results in government-sponsored competition within the free market.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: WDW PROPERTIES v. City of Sumter (2000)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"