THEIR VIEWS

No use for payday lenders

S.C. lawmakers jumping on the bandwagon to sue payday lenders and perhaps land a big payday themselves should redirect that energy toward passing legislation to end the predatory practice instead.

We have no use for payday lenders. They operate under a faulty business model that calls for extending loans to people who can't repay them. ... We prefer that S.C. lawmakers ban them as North Carolina, Georgia and other states have. ...

Those lawmakers who have joined these suits should stand down; there are plenty of non-legislators who are fully capable of trying these cases. If legislators want to hold payday lenders accountable, they should keep them from continuing to take advantage of borrowers by passing a strong law that brings this industry to heel.

Not only that, if lawmakers believe these lenders have broken - and are continuing to break - current law, they should demand the Board of Financial Institutions, which oversees the lenders, do its job. In addition, they should ask state Attorney General Henry McMaster to explore whether the lenders are breaking the law and, if so, to prosecute.

We know lawyers who are lawmakers must make a living, but right now, the public needs them to legislate. It would be a shame if they squander an opportunity to rein payday lending and give consumers relief.

The (Columbia) State

Interstate water dispute

While South Carolina failed to get an injunction against North Carolina's plan to transfer up to 10 million gallons of water a day from the Catawba River to Concord and Kannapolis, the case has moved a step closer to being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. ...

It takes little imagination after weeks of severe drought in Upstate South Carolina to recognize that removing that much water from the river could have a sizable impact on downstream users. We hope the Supreme Court will agree to hear this case and offer a precedent-setting ruling that would protect the interests of South Carolinians.

A significant coalition of diverse groups has formed to fight this proposal. Sixteen towns and counties in the river basin - on both sides of the state line - have objected to the proposed water transfer.

Even if the Supreme Court does not agree to hear this case, lawmakers in both states could be pressured to enact a balanced framework for deciding interstate disputes over water. Fairness dictates that North Carolina should not have sole jurisdiction over a river that is such a vital resource for South Carolina, and for York County in particular.

The (Rock Hill) Herald

Off on a wrong foot

The state's highway commissioners stumbled out of the gate in their first go at prioritizing state road and bridge projects.

After spending hours going over a projects list using new objective criteria, the board voted 4-3 to add a project that didn't meet the criteria, The Greenville News reported.

This gets the board - and the new ranking system - off on a very wrong foot. ...

The criteria are very reasonable. They include financial viability, public safety, potential for economic development, traffic volume and congestion, environmental impact and consistency with local land-use plans. Unfortunately, the law also includes the words ''not limited to'' when it comes to the criteria, leaving room for the kind of vote we saw at this board meeting.

One has to conclude the legislature's heart wasn't in this ''reform'' effort. The same people are in charge. The legislature maintains control through appointments and specific oversight. One substantive change was allowing the governor to hire the executive director (subject to Senate approval). And what does Gov. Mark Sanford do? He picks Buck Limehouse Jr., a former commission member hired by the commission before reform legislation was passed.

It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. That's unfortunate because we needed real reform at this agency. The commission will have to prove it can do better than business as usual.

The (Hilton Head) Island Packet