It is a rare day that my legal interests of zoning law and ocean governance are discussed in a single case, but thanks to the South Carolina Supreme Court, I must say:
The case is Carnival Corporation v. Historic Ansonborough Neighborhood Association and the original opinion can be found here.
In South Carolina, several citizen's groups and interested associations brought a suit against a cruise ship operator alleging nuisance and zoning violations and sought an injunction. The groups complain about the use of Charleston's terminal to berth the Fantasy. The groups alleged that the noise pollution and passenger operations disrupted the historic district where it berthed.
Carnival (and the municipal defendants) filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim because they lack standing and that the cruise ship operations were not governed by the zoning ordinances asserted.
Strangely, before the trial court decided the motion, the case was transferred to the South Carolina Supreme Court, invoking the court's original jurisdiction. That court ordered a special referee to conduct a hearing and then make a recommendation on the motion to dismiss.
The court, reviewing the special referee's recommendation, found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert any of the claims brought. The court found that the plaintiffs claimed only generalized grievances and not particularized harm, which is fatal to a party's standing to proceed. All of the environmental impacts, traffic, smokestacks, soot, zoning, other environmental laws are suffered by the public at large and are not particular to any one person or group. [Under S. Carolina law, typically the State itself makes these claims].
As to the zoning claims, S. Carolina law did provide for standing for violations of zoning ordinances, but only for adjacent property owners. Added to the lack of particular damage to any person or group, the court found standing lacking to make these claims.
The court concludes by imploring the plaintiffs to seek redress elsewhere:
In our constitutional system of government with its separation of powers, courts exercise the limited constitutional function of the "judicial power." S.C. Const. art. V, § 1. Accordingly, courts are limited to resolving cases and the powers inherent in that function. Courts are not bodies for the resolution of public policy and generalized grievances. Harms suffered by the public at large, like those Plaintiffs allege here, are to be remedied by the legislative and executive branches. If existing laws and regulations or their enforcement fail to protect the public from harm, it is incumbent upon the public to seek reform through their elected officials or failing that, at the ballot box.
Sound advice.