Opinion ID: 1203210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the trial court err in finding appellant lacked standing to challenge subsections (a) and (b) of the ordinance?

Text: Appellant argues the trial court erred in ruling it lacked standing to challenge the validity of subsections (a) and (b) of the ordinance. Subsection (a) requires property owners to place certain signs in their parking lots before they can lawfully have a vehicle towed. Subsection (b) makes the property owner guilty of a misdemeanor if it has a vehicle towed without complying with the signage requirements in subsection (a) or if the vehicle is shown to have been legally parked. Thus, these subsections apply directly to property owners, not to towing services. Nevertheless, we conclude appellant has standing to challenge the entire ordinance. A private party may not invoke judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action unless he has sustained, or is in danger of sustaining, prejudice therefrom. Florence Morning News v. Building Comm'n, 265 S.C. 389, 398, 218 S.E.2d 881, 884-85 (1975). [S]uch imminent prejudice must be of a personal nature to the party laying claim to standing and not merely of general interest common to all members of the public. Citizens for Lee County, Inc. v. Lee County, 308 S.C. 23, 29, 416 S.E.2d 641, 645 (1992). Appellant has standing to challenge subsections (a) and (b) of the ordinance because of the impact the restrictions potentially have on its own income. [V]endors and those in like positions have been uniformly permitted to resist efforts at restricting their operations by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 195, 97 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976). In Craig, the United States Supreme Court permitted a 3.2% beer vendor to challenge the constitutionality of a statute permitting the sale of 3.2% beer to females over the age of eighteen, but prohibiting its sale to males under the age of twenty-one. Because enforcement of the statute directly affected the vendor, she was permitted to assert the equal protection rights of males between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. Although Craig is not binding upon this Court, we find its reasoning persuasive. Like the beer vendor in Craig, appellant is the potential party economically affected by the ordinance, and therefore the one with the most motivation to challenge the ordinance. Moreover, the harm to appellant is of a personal nature ... and not merely of general interest common to all members of the public. Citizens for Lee County, 308 S.C. at 29, 416 S.E.2d at 645. Having concluded appellant has standing to challenge the entire ordinance and the trial court should have permitted appellant to challenge the ordinance as a whole and not just the rate provisions, we now turn to the question whether the ordinance conflicts with state law.