Captain Sam’s Split: 32 Million Taxpayer Dollars and the Bad Precedent

The following is a six-part series on the taxpayer-funded $32 million appropriation to settle a lawsuit for Captain Sam’s Split on Kiawah Island.

Part 1: Captain Sam’s Split

Yesterday the Legislature voted to spend $32 million to settle the Captain Sam’s Spit dispute rather than continue litigation. I offered several amendments to force due diligence before we spend $32 million of your dollars. I was not successful .

The vote is over. I respect the will of the body. But today I am beginning a short series to explain why this decision matters — not just for one piece of land, but for future liability when state regulations restrict development.

In land-use law, settlements do more than resolve disputes.

They send signals.

They shape expectations.

They influence what the next developer believes the state will do.

And they influence how taxpayers may be asked to respond in the future.

Over the next several days I will explain — calmly and factually — how decisions like this can affect future regulatory takings claims, coastal development disputes, and the financial exposure of our state.

South Carolina can protect conservation.

South Carolina can respect property rights.

But South Carolina must also protect taxpayers from setting precedents we cannot afford.

More to come.

Please share these next few posts. These are the types of “lack of due diligence” pieces of legislation (like Scout Motors) your legislators pass and South Carolina taxpayers pay for.

Part 2: Captain Sam’s Spit — Why This Matters

Yesterday I explained why the $32 million settlement matters beyond one piece of coastal property.

Today let’s talk about something most citizens never see — but every developer and every land‑use attorney understands.

Settlements send signals.

When government writes a large check to resolve a dispute over development restrictions, it does more than end one lawsuit. It tells the next developer what strategy might work. It tells the next attorney what kind of case might be worth filing. And it quietly tells taxpayers what they may be asked to fund in the future.

In regulatory takings disputes, the question is often not just “Was development limited?” The real question becomes:

How likely is the government to settle? If the perceived answer becomes “very likely,” then future claims do not become less common — they often become more common. And sometimes more expensive.

This is not about being anti‑conservation.

This is not about being anti‑property rights.

It is about understanding that legal outcomes shape expectations — and expectations shape financial exposure.

Government decisions create roadmaps others may follow.

More to come.

Part 3: I Tried to Slow Down the $32 Million Payment

This week I tried to offer a simple amendment to the state budget.

Not to stop the $32 million payment. Not to kill the deal. Just to slow it down.

My amendment would have required outside legal review and basic due diligence before taxpayers’ money was sent out the door.

That’s it. But when the Ways and Means Committee challenged my amendment, the House Speaker agreed with them and ruled that my proposal was “not germane” to the budget.

In other words — we could approve the $32 million… but we could not vote to pause and fully review the risks. That should concern every taxpayer.

Because this isn’t just about one property dispute. When the state agrees to make a large payment without fully testing the legal case or understanding the long-term precedent, other claims can follow.

Developers notice.

Lawyers notice.

Future negotiations change.

Today’s $32 million decision can quietly become tomorrow’s expectation.

Before we create a new pattern of paying to avoid litigation, we should be absolutely certain we understand the consequences. If you think other people in South Carolina need to be made aware of this, please share this post with your Facebook friends.

Tomorrow I’ll explain how this decision could shape future coastal development fights across South Carolina.

Part 4 — The Precedent We Just Set.

The last three days, I focused on the lack of due diligence… the unanswered legal questions… and the risks of paying before fully understanding our exposure.

Today, I want to talk about precedent. Because what we did was not just about one piece of sand on one barrier island.

We sent a message.

We told every developer, every landowner, and every attorney watching South Carolina that if you push hard enough — if you threaten litigation loudly enough — the state may write a check before the legal process runs its course.

That matters.

South Carolina has long relied on coastal protection laws, environmental regulations, and infrastructure realities — like the inability to build legal roads — to guide responsible development. Those laws exist for a reason. But when we agree to pay millions without letting the courts fully decide the issue, we blur the line between lawful regulation and “taking.”

Future cases will point to this moment.

Future claimants will say: “You paid there — why not here?”

And taxpayers will be the ones holding the bill.

Let me be clear:

This is not about opposing conservation.

This is not about opposing development.

It is about timing.

It is about due diligence.

It is about protecting South Carolina from setting a costly precedent.

The House had an opportunity to slow down… to seek outside legal review… to make sure we understood the long-term implications. That opportunity was ruled not germane.

Now the decision goes to the Senate. They have the same opportunity. But the consequences are just beginning.

If you think more people in South Carolina should understand what happened — and what it could mean going forward — please share this post with your Facebook friends.

Part 5 — The Senate Can Still Stop This

The House has voted to include a $32 million payment related to Captain Sam’s Spit in the state budget. But this decision is not final.

The South Carolina Senate will soon review the House budget — and they still have the power to remove this appropriation.

That matters. Because what is at stake here is bigger than one property dispute. If the Senate approves this payment without a final court ruling, without full litigation, and without independent due diligence, South Carolina may be sending a message that reaches far beyond one stretch of coastline.

It could signal that when long-standing state regulations limit development, the path forward may be to seek compensation from taxpayers rather than resolve the issue fully in court.

That is not a small policy shift. That is a precedent.

Once the state voluntarily writes a check of this size, future claims become easier to imagine… easier to argue… and potentially harder for taxpayers to resist.

Other property owners will be watching.

Other attorneys will be watching.

Other developers will be watching. “The state paid once. They can pay again.”

This is why some of us asked for more time, more transparency, and independent legal review before moving forward. Not to block a solution — but to understand the long-term financial and legal consequences. Because if the Senate keeps this $32 million payment in the final budget, South Carolina could be opening the door to future claims that taxpayers may be forced to fund for years to come.

The Senate still has an opportunity to pause… to review… and to make sure this decision protects both our coastline and our citizens’ wallets.

If you believe more people in South Carolina should understand what is at stake, please share this post.

Part 6: Who Benefits… and Who Pays?

Over the past week I have raised concerns about the State of South Carolina agreeing to pay $32 million related to Captain Sam’s Spit.

Today I want to focus on a very basic question of fairness.

Who receives the greatest benefit from this decision — and who is being asked to pay for it?

As this situation unfolds, it appears that the City of Kiawah Island and the Kiawah homeowners association will end up with significant influence or control over much of this land. Of course, the development company will collect $37 million.

The city and the HOA each gain certainty.

They gain protection from development pressure.

They gain long-term land-use control.

But most of the cost is not being carried locally. It is being carried by taxpayers across the entire State of South Carolina.

Families in the Upstate.

Small businesses in the Midlands.

Working people in the Pee Dee and Lowcountry.

They are all being asked to help fund a $32 million payment tied to a very local land-use outcome.

This is not about being for or against conservation. It is about asking whether statewide taxpayers should bear 85% of the financial burden when the most direct benefits are concentrated in one community.

The South Carolina Senate will now review this appropriation. They still have the ability to slow this process down, ask additional questions, and ensure that taxpayers fully understand both the costs and the long-term impacts before any final decision is made.

If you share these concerns, I encourage you to respectfully contact your State Senator and ask for careful review and full due diligence.

Thoughtful oversight today can protect taxpayers tomorrow.