Town to pay $6M for land
Purchase on Shem Creek to settle Mt. Pleasant condemnation suit
The Post and Courier/Staff
Mount Pleasant planned to condemn a 1-acre tract near Shem Creek known as the OK Tire property.
MOUNT PLEASANT — Town Council voted Wednesday to spend $6 million to acquire 43 acres of Shem Creek property, thus settling its condemnation lawsuit against the owners of about an acre of the land known as the OK Tire property.
"We're glad it's behind us," said Town Administrator Mac Burdette.
After an executive session, council voted unanimously to authorize Mayor Harry Hallman to sign the agreement with property owners Mark Mason and Phillip Smith.
The town and the property owners will meet to close the deal Dec. 18, said Town Attorney Allen Young.
Under the agreement, the town will acquire a section of creekfront known as the Bailey Docks.
"Getting the docks is very important," Burdette said. It means the town could build a public creekfront that goes from a park at the OK Tire property near Coleman Boulevard down to the Bailey Docks just past Vickery's all the way to the harbor, Burdette said.
"It's a great day. It will allow us to have true water access for the general public," he said. Funds for the purchase will come from the town Tax Increment Financing District. He said the town would likely want to talk to other creek property owners about acquiring more property for public use.
If the town and the property owners had not reached agreement, a circuit judge was scheduled to hear arguments Dec. 19 on the property owners' motion to dismiss the town condemnation suit.
Young said that Hallman will sign the documents agreeing to the purchase today. "It ends the lawsuit completely," Young said.
On Oct. 10, Young issued a statement that under the authority council had delegated to him, he would file a $2,285,000 condemnation action for the OK Tire property. Mason and Smith countered that the property was worth $4.6 million. Earlier, council made a $6 million offer for the OK Tire property and the Bailey Docks. Mason and Smith wanted more than $7.6 million. Council did not specify how much the town will pay for the OK Tire property.
The acrimonious negotiations were marked by Mason's threats to obtain the hard drives of council members' computers to reconstruct e-mails he said had been purposely deleted because they concerned town business. He alleged that town business was being done under the radar by e-mail. Mason, an attorney, also alleged other violations of the state Freedom of Information Act. He was not immediately available for comment late Wednesday night.
Mason planned to put 24 condominiums on the OK Tire land and 24 floating boat slips on Shem Creek. In 2005, the town offered $2 million for the OK Tire property and the Bailey Docks on Shem Creek, which are small docks shrimpers use.
In other action, council voted 5-3 to hold an advisory referendum March 18 on whether council should have extended its terms by 14 months. Six months ago, council moved its next election date from September 2008 to November 2009 with the idea of increasing election turnout. In the last election in September of 2006, only 11 percent of registered voters participated.
The advisory referendum is not binding. Under state law, council members cannot be elected to other than two-year or four-year terms. Opponents of the term extension that council voted for itself said voters should choose candidates elected to an additional 14 months. For an election to happen for four-year and 14-month terms, state law would have to be changed. Hallman and Councilmen Billy Swails and Nick Collins voted against the referendum. Hallman said he wants to revisit the issue next month when Mayor Pro Tem Kruger Smith is back in town.
Reach Prentiss Findlay at 937-5711 or pfindlay@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
whalernut (anonymous) says...
Well that is better then 2 million
December 6, 2007 at 5:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mac0cm4 (anonymous) says...
I think the town realized they weren't going to win that lawsuit. Maybe had they not waffled on their previous offers for the land they'd have had a chance....
And the cheap lawn chair comment made me laugh...hehe.
December 6, 2007 at 6:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ImplantedYankee (anonymous) says...
They could have saved themselves all of the trouble and embarrassment if they had just done the right thing from the beginning. Did they really think they could steal $5M without a fight (one they could not win)?
December 6, 2007 at 7:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sailaway (anonymous) says...
Am I the only one who thinks this amount of money is absolutely outrageous for this creek access, given the fact that with Mason's development plan, we the tax payers would have had the very same thing for free by way of a permanent easement? Oh, and all the cleanup and construction of walkways would have been provided too, by Mr. Mason.
December 6, 2007 at 7:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Nacho (anonymous) says...
As a clarification, the original condemnation for 2.285 million was for the OK Tire Property alone. The 6 million dollar offer is for the OK Tire Property AND the Bailey docks. The Town acts like this is over, but I don't think that the owners have agreed to anything yet. I believe the owners say that the two properties together are worth 7.6 million, not 6 million (a substantial difference). The Town has dug themselves into a deep hole and is trying to find an easy way out.
And to think that they could have had exactly what they wanted for FREE with Mason's development plan that included PUBLIC fishing docks and access to the water. Now the Town will be paying at least 6 million for the property, the cost to build the park and update or rebuild the Bailey docks, cost of upkeep of the park, loss of tax revenue on the property, legal fees for the owners, and probably other things, when they can't even afford to finish the last park they "built" by the bridge.
What a bunch of morons. Don't we have anything better to spend +/- 10 million dollars of our tax money on?
December 6, 2007 at 7:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
early, early: synchronizing traffic lights would mean that council/mayor are truly concerned about its citizens' safety and not by the allure of $. and we can't have that.
December 6, 2007 at 8:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Kerry (anonymous) says...
As stated in one of my earlier posts, the outcome was so predictable:
Posted on November 14 at 2:21 p.m.
On Mount Pleasant secretive on vote
Don't worry Mayor, I am sure at some point an undisclosed settlement will be agreed upon behind closed doors, monies will change hands under the table, and all parties will come out smiling - including Mr. Mason. All parties with the exception of the fine taxpaying citizens of Mount Pleasant that is, who ultimately must keep funding the ongoing carnival located at 100 Ann Edwards Lane.
There you have it from November 14 - well, it was nice to think for a while that the citizens could actually make a difference. Now we know for certain that unless you know all the right people your opinion is meaningless. This will be my last post - it was nice getting to know everyone posting here and I really enjoyed the discussion.
Kerry
December 6, 2007 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCgal (anonymous) says...
LOL the town all aglow
With traffic lights in a row!
You know the REAL reason for trying to settle- they want that big "Just say NO to ED" down before the Christmas or did they change it to Holiday or is it the Zoo Parade coming to town!
December 6, 2007 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
This makes it obvious that money talks and BS walks. I mean, nakedly obvious.
December 6, 2007 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
proudmomma (anonymous) says...
I am just glad this is over- I am soooo tired of hearing about it.
December 6, 2007 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Nacho (anonymous) says...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the owners have to agree to the settlement before this is over, and I don't think they have.
December 6, 2007 at 9:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
willismbarber (anonymous) says...
The town council is a big joke. Why would you enter into a legal battle with a very sucessful lawyer in the first place? He gave them a sound beating everytime they opened their mouth. Hopefully they learned a lesson. This is a giant waste of money. The property taxes alone we would have collected would be 200-300k a year from the 26 condos. I say drop the whole thing and let them build the condos. Now we will all be paying more for this park. My guess is the majority of the people who use it will not even be MT P residents.
December 6, 2007 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tigerfish (anonymous) says...
"He said that town would likely talk to other creek owners..."
Watch out, we all know how the town talks. Who's next to face ED (eminent domain ,not erectile dysfunction)? Once Mt.P said "Public Park" Mason /Smith were doomed because of SC E.D. Laws. Other Shem Creek owners watch out because the E.D. bullet may be coming your way.
December 6, 2007 at 10:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pa220 (anonymous) says...
I am a Mt.P resident and do not want a park. It's our(taxpayers)money going to a park that will be named after some politician! These people on council keep saying it is for the greater good of the citizens, but no one asks us about any of these large expenditures! As far as the condo idea, I thought the expansion of MT.P was going to slow after Mayor Flowers was voted out for not putting a cap on the building permits! Voters need to take back the city!
December 6, 2007 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
desspec (anonymous) says...
What do you suppose would happen if any Shem Creek restaurants decide to go condo?
December 6, 2007 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sailaway (anonymous) says...
Pa220, I don't really want a park either. But reading this article, the comments from the town sound oddly off-track:
"We're glad it's behind us" says Mac Burdette. Buying a park is behind us?
"It ends the lawsuit completely" by Allen Young. But I thought we were just buying a park!
What's really going on here with our $6,000,000???
December 6, 2007 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Kerry (anonymous) says...
Sorry - could not resist one last post...
Likely the town did not have to waste another check - the one for $6 million was probably cut a long time ago.
December 6, 2007 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mytwocents_com (anonymous) says...
I agree sailaway. $6 million for 24 condos and 24 boat slips or for a park. With a FMV of 6million, that means he was planning on selling condos with boatslips at around 1.1 to 1.2 million a piece. I dont even come close to seeing that. Would you buy a condo with a boatslip right on coleman blvd with 30K plus cars passing by a day for 1.1 million? He took the town for an absolute ride!! Good for him though, they tried to screw with him and he called their bluff.
December 6, 2007 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Perspective (anonymous) says...
---mytwocents---
Your calculater is broken. 6 million divided by 24 is not 1.2 million each. It is much less.
However, I can see condos with boatslips on Shem Creek easily selling for several hundred thousand each. Coleman Blvd is actually a selling point. There is almost never a traffic backup on Coleman and the Town is redeveloping Coleman at taxpayer expense which will slow traffic and make the property even more valuable.
The Town got off lucky to buy the property for that.
I am glad to see Mark didn't end up with worthless marsh with the Town taking his property.
December 6, 2007 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bigwhip (anonymous) says...
The town could have purchased the property about three years ago for approx. $2 mil-$2.5 mil when Mason was willing to sell. It might be interesting to hear your council tell you why they didn't move on it then.
December 6, 2007 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ImplantedYankee (anonymous) says...
I hope the Mt. P. residents remember all of this on voting day.
December 6, 2007 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mytwocents_com (anonymous) says...
Well my calculator factored in some really really rough construction estimates for condos and slips. When you have approximately 250K in the land for each condo unit, prior to construction, you are going to have to sell a million plus end product, or so I have been told. I just dont see people paying that kind of money for that property. I do see people paying 700K but not 1million. who knows. I am not a developer.
December 6, 2007 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ThinkAboutThis (anonymous) says...
Post # 3 below has an interesting letter from a TofMP council member
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/parkwes...
December 6, 2007 at 3:24 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.