Skip to main content

Voices. Knowledge. Solutions.

Act 224 Expands South Carolina Heritage Act Requirements

Act 224 Expands South Carolina Heritage Act Requirements 

In 2000, the SC General Assembly passed the SC Heritage Act, prohibiting the removal or alteration of historic monuments on public property, as well as the rededication of public areas or structures named for historic persons or events. 

Last May, the General Assembly passed Act 224. Found at SC Code Section 10-1-165, it amends and restates the text of the Heritage Act with similar, but expanded, requirements. 

Expanded applicability

The Heritage Act in 2000 covered monuments related to specified wars throughout United States history, from the Revolutionary War to the Persian Gulf War, and monuments addressing Native American or African-American history. 

Act 224 widens the list of protected monuments, adding “colonial war,” such as those that occurred before the American Revolution; “any armed conflict involving South Carolinians” and “other historic monuments or memorials erected on public property.” 

It also adds “installations” and “nameplates” to the list of items that cannot be renamed or rededicated — joining streets, bridges, structures, parks and others. The law also added “historic groups of people” and “commemorated events” to the scope of protection. 

Any municipal-owned monument, memorial or named public area of an arguably historic character is likely to be covered by the law.

Prohibition on contextualization

The Act 224 prohibits the installation of plaques, markers or electronic message devices near a monument that were not part of the original installation. This restriction applies to contextualizing plaques and markers as well as to “anything that facilitates the transmission of messages through digital or electronic means,” which would include, for example, QR codes directing smartphone users to additional material involving the monument’s subject.

Making changes to monuments 

The law adds a means of authorizing changes to a covered monument or memorial. The General Assembly, by joint resolution, may approve a change.

Act 224 also allows the addition to a monument of the names of members of a class “who were not known to be or had not qualified as a member of the class at the time that the monument or memorial was first erected.” This could include the names of additional people determined to have died in a memorialized event. 

Monument disruptions

Act 224 addresses situations in which the property containing a monument or memorial would be sold, demolished or temporarily disrupted by utility projects. It requires that the monument or be restored to its original location, or to “property of equal or greater prominence and visibility.” 

In cases where a demolished building is not replaced with a new one, this requirement applies to “plaques, markers, or other tangible items removed from the demolished structure.”

Litigation

The law now grants standing to organizations to sue for injunctive or declaratory relief in cases involving monuments. If the monument has already been damaged or destroyed, they may sue for restoration damages. A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees.

The eligible groups are these:

  • Affinity organizations – nonprofits established to honor a particular event, people or time period
  • Monument preservation organizations – nonprofits established to preserve or protect a monument 

Before filing suit, an affinity organization must give 90 days’ written notice and an opportunity for the organization to repair a damaged monument, or replace a destroyed monument.

When protections are applied

The protections in Act 224 are attached to the monument immediately at the time it is dedicated or named. A city government that names or dedicates a monument, a memorial, a street, a building or some similar item within the coverage of the law immediately places permanent protection over the name and other features of the monument, memorial, name, or dedication.

Cities and towns should be careful to treat any naming or dedication as final and unchangeable. As a best practice, officials can adopt a formal naming policy so that these decisions are taken up by the full governing body.