North Charleston to condemn land
City wants former Navy tank farm
By Warren Wise
North Charleston has initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire the 24-acre former fuel storage facility once used by the Navy near Toole Military Magnet School.
The North Charleston City Council passed a resolution Thursday to acquire the property through eminent domain.
"The city has attempted to negotiate the purchase of the property known as the off-base tank farm so that the property may be used for a public purpose," according to a memo to council from Deputy City Attorney Rich Lingenfelter. "The owner of the land will not accept the city's offer and, therefore, the city must exercise the power of eminent domain in a court of law to acquire the property."
As of Monday, the city had not yet filed official condemnation papers in court as both sides hope that a last-minute deal might be reached. By passing the resolution, the city positioned itself to move forward quickly.
The city is offering the owner, Cross Atlantic LLC, $884,000 for the parcel in the Chicora-Cherokee neighborhood.
North Charleston tried to acquire the property in 2004 but was outbid. Cross Atlantic paid $1,050,000 for the property.
The city wants to transform the old tank farm into a park, fire station and affordable housing.
"It will provide needed public facilities in the south end of the city that will be much improved from what we have now," City Councilman Kurt Taylor said.
The Navy removed the tanks at ground level and covered over the remains after it closed the nearby Navy base in 1996, said Robert Ryan with the Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority. It also placed monitoring wells on the site, he said.
Property owner Anthony Rhodes bought the site so he could move his cramped Big Red Inc. forklift dealership on nearby Jacksonville Road to part of the site and use the rest of the property for other businesses or housing.
Rhodes thought the property was zoned for commercial and residential use, but North Charleston Planning Director Bill Gore said the property has always been zoned for residential use. The city upgraded the land use from multi-family to single-family residential use about two years ago when it changed the land use on about 1,100 properties on the city's south end to single-family use only.
Rhodes and Mayor Keith Summey talked two years ago about swapping a little-used 9-acre city-owned park not far away on Spruill Avenue for the tank farm, with the city paying Rhodes the difference in land values.
Rhodes said he thought he and the city have been close to a deal three times since 2004, but nothing materialized.
"They low-balled me so low that I couldn't accept it," he said of a recent offer.
Rhodes declined to discuss what amount he would accept for the property, but he said it's worth more than the city is offering and what he paid for it because he has maintained the property and paid interest on the loan to acquire it.
"We might work something out," Rhodes said. "But once I know that I'm at an impasse, my gloves are off and I'm going to do whatever I can to protect myself."
Once the city files the official condemnation papers with the court, the city will own the land, North Charleston City Attorney Brady Hair said.
Rhodes can either accept the city's offer or fight for more money in court, Hair said. He called the city's offer fair market value. Rhodes can also challenge the city's right to acquire the land.
"This is the first time the city has gone this far (since North Charleston Coliseum was built in the 1980s)," Taylor said of seeking condemnation. "We want to pay him for what it's worth but not more than what it's worth."
Reach Warren Wise at 745-5850 or wwise@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
NN (anonymous) says...
Hell's gonna be full. And that sorry mayor will be at the head of the line.
August 14, 2007 at 1:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charleston (anonymous) says...
I thought SC adopted more stringent laws on the heals of the US Supreme Court's communistic ruling concerning eminent domain. If a municipality can exercise eminent domain in this fashion then basically it holds a trump card that strikes out any genuine negotiation. The US Supreme Court's ruling seriously jeopardizes American principles of property ownership. I thought SC legislators were wiser. Have I missed something?
August 14, 2007 at 2:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
I'm the first one in line to "condemn" the government's use of eminent domain in many cases, but in no sense does this situation raise anything at issue in the US Supreme Court case from a few years ago, Kelo v. City of New London. This is the classic use of eminent domain, a power which is specifically protected by the US Constitution. If people don't like the use of it, vote out the members of City Council.
Remember that every property owner has the right to fair compensation for his lost property, but no one has a constitutional guarantee to a profit. If this fellow overpaid because he didn't know what the zoning was before he bought the parcel a few years ago, I don't feel too bad for him. Also recall that the buyer does not set the price in these cases. The property owner has a right to go to court and receive exactly what he can show that the land is worth.
Last week these boards were full of people complaining that the public was overpaying when the county decided to buy the land for a new park out on 17 South because the owners had negotiated a price above what they had paid. I'll predict that many of the same people will now write about the public taking advantage of the property owner by underpaying.
August 14, 2007 at 2:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charleston (anonymous) says...
Reader, who says the property owner overpaid? Clearly there is a demand for this real estate. He sets his price, if it is too steep for a potential buyer so be it. The property does not sell. Likewise, a buyer is not obligated to purchase a property if he does not agree to the price sought by the sellar. NC's attempted acquisition of this property through the mechanism of eminent domain will financially benefit some other private citizen or entity. If property is taken without the consent of the owner its called stealing. Eminent domain has its place but not here and not in this scenario. I agree with you, though, why hasn't eminent domain been used to cease large tracts for Charleston County's green space initiative?
August 14, 2007 at 4:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Native_Ink (anonymous) says...
Wow. Mayor Summey loves to talk about a developer's property rights when he's grabbing land in West Ashley or Hanahan. But he'll stoop to taking land by condemnation when it suits him too. North Charleston will always be second-best while it has politicians like him in charge.
August 14, 2007 at 5:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
poorboy (anonymous) says...
Native_Ink,
"SECOND BEST" behind whom? Mayor Joe the king of annexation, IE James Island?
August 14, 2007 at 6:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
Charleston -
I think he overpaid since the article says the owner bought the land under the mistaken belief it was zoned for mixed use (which would typically result in a far higher value in that neighborhood) when in fact it was only zoned for residential use (which would result in a far lower value in that neighborhood).
It doesn't seem that some other private person or entity is going to benefit from this. That was what was involved in the case in New London, and I agree it was wrong. There, land was seized by the city and title was then transferred to a developer as a method of eliminating blight. Here, there is nothing to suggest that the city is doing this to benefit any specific private person.
Will someone benefit from being able to live in low-income housing for a while or being able to walk in a park? Yes, but EVERY exercise of eminent domain benefits the public in a general sense. In fact, the public HAS to be benefitted as a condition of using the power. After all, seizing land to build a road benefits the private citizens who drive on it. The important thing here is that it seems that the city will continue owning and operating whatever public uses are put to the land.
As for the sales price, it is admittedly not a freely entered purchase. But again, that is ALWAYS the case in eminent domain. If a price could be agreed upon on the free market, the government would never need to use eminent domain. The power exists to allow the government to provide for services sought by he public despite holdout property owners. The process of eminent domain reproduces the free market as closely as possible by letting a court hear the testimony and decide what a fair price is, when a property owner might otherwise simply refuse to budge from $1,000,000,000 per acre.
Again, I hate the use of eminent domain, but I don't want anyone to think that it is a method for the government to simply identify land and then take it either for free or at a discount. It is not.
August 14, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charleston (anonymous) says...
Dear Reader,
Whether the property owner mistakenly or conscientiously purchased the property in hopes of converting or rezoning it to commercial is all quite immaterial. The fact remains that at a public auction he out bid the city for it in 2004. Now in 2007, the city appraises the property at a value significantly less than what the owner actually paid for it and insists on him selling it to them at their price. Like any good faith negotiation both parties should be in the same range for a successful deal. The ~$200,000 spread would not sit well with me either if I were the property owner. And I doubt that it would set well with you. If I were the owner I would chance other uses for the property to recoup my investment. The city is keeping him from doing that and in turn is attempting to steal ~$200,000 from him.
Additionally, if this land were being used solely for the park and Fire Station I could accept that the eminent domain instrument is valid. However, NC has the stated expectation of developing this property for "affordable housing". Now the issue is about life cycle cost analysis and the city recouping ITS initial investment, and possibly profit. Even if there is no paper profit shown, the future "affordable housing" owners or renters will have benefited financially from the city's theft since savings will be passed on to them. I suspect that you and I will probably not be one of those owners or tenants thus your assertion that eminent domain benefits the "public in a general sense" is ludicrous.
Sorry, Reader, no matter how you try to spin NC's land grab it remains morally repugnant.
August 14, 2007 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blondjes (anonymous) says...
North Charleston is the armpit of the lowcountry, somebody needs to do something about it
August 14, 2007 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
singleroni (anonymous) says...
if want to condem and clean up - Why not do something with spruill avenue. Man that area needs help big time. What is the mayor doing . Must be he doesnt own property there.
August 14, 2007 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GG (anonymous) says...
North Charleston is a huge city with a massive amount of large spaces that the mayor could try to purchase. Who hasn't driven down Rivers Avenue and seen these areas? Why go to so much trouble and legal expense to condemn this property just to build in the armpit of the area - Cherokee-Chicora? Sounds to me like Mr. Mayor is just pi$$ed off that he didn't get it with his original bid and now is playing revenge hardball. That is very disappointing to me.
August 14, 2007 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ccfromsc (anonymous) says...
Of Course Chicora-Cherokee area is bad. So are other areas of North Charleston. It is the willfull and deliberate part of City Hall to withhold services such as timely response from the police to cause the economic degradition of said areas to the point the city can take the property like in this case for pennies. The city allows drug dealers, prostitutes, etc. to take over an area and to literally pillage that neighborhood causing many to first live in terror and then flee. Soon business leave, and then the landowners soon realize that it is not worth the headache to fix up any of the property cause of the vandalism and theft so the buildings etc, deteriorate to ruins.The Mayor has a vestige interest in this cause his inlaws do have land and business in that area of town...Houston Crowders Towing...
I challenge anyone here that reads this to do this: go to North Charleston to Shipwatch Square (across from Naval Hospital) and see if there is a payphone there, then call 911 and then see how long it takes for the police to arrive.
August 14, 2007 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
From upstream: "I suspect that you and I will probably not be one of those owners or tenants thus your assertion that eminent domain benefits the 'public in a general sense' is ludicrous."
You are wrong about that. Your analysis cannot possibly be right. While I suspect that I will never have the need to live in the North Charleson low income house, I am even more certain that the firefighters at that station will never be asked to put out a fire in my house. And I assure you that I will never go to that neighborhood to sit in the park.
Eminent domain does not have to directly benefit every single person in a jurisdiction to be appropriate. There are no instances where that would ever be the case.
August 14, 2007 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wilmot (anonymous) says...
Eminent domain is the aquisition of property at gun point! If it is allowed to happen once, they'll never stop. NC citizens can stop it by the power of the vote. Get rid of them before they decide they want YOUR property.
August 14, 2007 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Off campus
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- New drug may hold promise for lupus sufferers
