A Circuit Court judge has ruled in favor of the Isle of Palms in a case brought against the city by the Charleston Area Public Beach Access and Parking Group, which claimed that the IOP Council violated the Freedom of Information Act during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a ruling issued on March 2, Judge Roger M. Young Sr. determined that the Council was within its rights under FOIA to pass an ordinance limiting public gatherings and prohibiting parking in specific areas at an emergency meeting that was held July 15, 2020. The judge also shot down the claim that the city’s imposition of a $100 fine for parking on a state-owned, public right-of-way violated the excessive fines clause of the state constitution.
According to the ruling, the Beach Foundation, which was formed on Aug. 25, 2020, could not argue the fact that it was denied proper notice of the meeting because it did not exist when the emergency meeting was held on July 15, 2020.
With the passage of Ordinance 2020-11, which went into effect July 17, 2020, the Council formally declared a state of emergency due to the resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic; gave City Administrator Desiree Fragoso the authority to develop a plan to ensure continuity in the delivery of government services and to cancel any special events permits that had already been issued; limited public gatherings that did not involve members of the same family or household to three persons; banned live entertainment after 9 p.m.; and mandated that businesses, including bars and restaurants, operate at no more than 50% capacity. The ordinance also prohibited beach parking on Palm Boulevard and on 3rd Avenue through 9th Avenue and reduced all municipal lots to 50% capacity.
In addition, parking on Hartnett Boulevard between 27th and 29th was limited to those using Recreation Department facilities. IOP residents with decals were permitted to park on Palm, and members of the Turtle Team were given the opportunity to apply for parking passes that would allow them to park in otherwise banned areas.
Concerning the claim that the city’s $100 parking fine violated the excessive fines clause of the state constitution, the judge ruled that “The plaintiff has not identified its members, has not shown that its members have sustained an injury-in-fact and has presented no evidence to support its facial challenge to the parking fines as codified in Section 8-2-14(a) of the Code of Ordinances.”
The ruling also pointed out that the plaintiff – the Beach Foundation – did not demonstrate that a $100 fine is inappropriate for “each and every parking offense,” including parking on a sidewalk, in front of a private or public driveway, within 15 feet of a fire hydrant, in a crosswalk, in front of a beach access, in a resident-only area without a permit, double parking or parking the opposite direction of the movement of traffic.
The ruling added that “while the plaintiff makes Senate Bill 40 a focus of its case, it has no bearing on whether the $100 parking fine is constitutionally excessive.”
S. 40, signed into law by Gov. Henry McMaster in May 2021, permits municipalities to charge for parking on state roads, but only with the approval of the Department of Transportation.
