More secrecy concerns in Mount Pleasant
Check for Shem Creek property issued days before council vote
Check for Shem Creek property issued days before council vote
MOUNT PLEASANT — A town check for $2,285,000 to be used for condemnation of the OK Tire property was issued four days before Town Council voted to pursue acquisition of the property. That gives the appearance of an illegal, secret decision by council to use its power of eminent domain to buy the land, said Jay Bender, attorney for the South Carolina Press Association.
"It certainly appears that the town made a decision secretly to acquire that land. It appears to have happened in secret, which would be illegal," Bender said.
Tyrone Walker
The Post and Courier
Land owner Mark Mason wants to put 24 condominiums on the OK Tire land and 24 floating boat slips on Shem Creek.
Town Attorney Allen Young requested the check in an Oct. 3 memo to Charlie Potts, director of administrative services. The check was issued Oct. 5. Town Council voted Oct. 9 to condemn the land for a public park if its offer of $2,285,000 was rejected. On Oct. 10, Young issued a statement that the town was condemning the land.
Attorney Mark Mason, whose 1.07 acres on the northern side of Shem Creek is being condemned, obtained a copy of the memo through the state Freedom of Information Act. "Obviously, a decision was made in secret before the vote," Mason said.
Young disputed Bender's and Mason's interpretations of the sequence of events. Regarding his Oct. 3 memo, Young said, "I was lining up my ducks in case council decided to move in that direction."
Had the OK Tire property not been condemned, the money would have been returned, he said.
"It was an internal matter," Young said. He said that he was acting within his authority when he requested the check. "There's nothing nefarious about this process. It wasn't secretive. It wasn't a plot," he said.
The Oct. 3 memo from Young to Potts states: "These funds will be posted with the Clerk (of Court) as part of a condemnation action to be filed relative to property known as the OK Tire Property." An Oct. 4 town requisition form for the check states, "Mark Mason/OK Tire property/condemnation action to be filed relative to property known as the OK Tire property."
On Oct. 9, Council voted to "authorize a final offer and, if not accepted, pursue final legal action as discussed." At that time, Young declined to describe the piece of property involved but said he had been authorized to file a condemnation proceeding if the $2,285,000 were rejected.
Councilman Paul Gawrych said Tuesday that there was no secrecy involved in council votes on the OK Tire property condemnation.
Bender has said that Town Council violated provisions of the state FOIA when it voted Nov. 13 to go into an executive session on a matter related to Shem Creek property without adequately stating what the vote was about. On that date, council voted to enter executive session for "legal and contractual matters pertaining to properties near Shem Creek."
Afterward, council voted to have Young proceed as discussed in executive session. At the time, Young declined to identify the properties near Shem Creek that were discussed in executive session.
On Nov. 14, Young disputed Bender's claim that the town was in violation of the FOIA because of the vague wording of the public notice for the Nov. 13 executive session on the Shem Creek condemnation. Young has said that on Nov. 13 he gave council an update on the condemnation of the OK Tire property.
In a public notice for a Nov. 16 council meeting and executive session, the town more clearly stated that it was talking about the Shem Creek condemnation behind closed doors.
The town offered Mason and co-owner Phillip Smith $6 million for the OK Tire property and 43.5 acres that front the creek past Vickery's known as "The Bailey Docks" where a marina would be built. Mason and Smith rejected the offer, and the town came back with its $2,285,000 offer for the 1.07-acre OK Tire property, which the owners also rejected.
Mason and Smith have sued to have the condemnation dismissed. Among the grounds they claim for dismissal are allegations that the town has violated the Freedom of Information Act.
Mason wants to put 24 condominiums on the OK Tire land and 24 floating boat slips on Shem Creek. An appraisal obtained by SunTrust bank for the OK Tire property values it at $4.6 million.
OK Tire property time line
-- Oct. 3: Town Attorney Allen Young requests a check for $2,285,000 to be issued on or before Oct. 10 payable to Charleston County Clerk of Court. The funds will be posted with the clerk as part of a condemnation action to be filed relative to the OK Tire property, Young says in a memo to Charlie Potts, director of administrative services.
-- Oct. 4: A requisition form for $2,285,000 states that the money is for "Mark Mason/OK Tire property condemnation."
-- Oct. 9: Council votes to "authorize a final offer and, if not accepted, pursue final legal action as discussed" after an executive session to discuss Shem Creek contractual and legal matters. Young declines to name the specific piece of property that the council wants to buy because of ongoing negotiations. Council does not name an amount it is offering for the unspecified piece of property.
-- Oct. 10: Young issues a statement that the town is condemning the OK Tire property after owner Mark Mason rejects an offer of $2,285,000. Mason has an appraisal of $4.6 million for the land.
-- Nov. 16: OK Tire property owners Mason and Phillip Smith file suit against the town, asking for the condemnation to be dismissed. Among the grounds for their countersuit are alleged town violations of the state Freedom of Information Act, including a violation Oct. 9 when Town Council approved the condemnation.
Reach Prentiss Findlay at 937-5711 or pfindlay@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier 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 "suggest removal" 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 Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 38 comment(s)
Posted by Inapastlife on November 28, 2007 at 1:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Young said It wasn't secretive. It wasn't a plot. I say its sounds like a conspiracy!
Posted by poorboy on November 28, 2007 at 6:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ditto!
The facts speak clearly. Mt P is out of control. I would put it right there with North Chas (Noisette) in regards to their shady doings.
Posted by meggettcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck..............You get the picture.
Posted by pavrett on November 28, 2007 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can only hope that every Council member gets the boot next round of elections. If the town of Mt. Pleasant is successful in condemnation of the front 1 acre I hope that Mr. Mason will build a 15 ft tall brick wall where his property starts. City council can go and enjoy that view.
Posted by sjmehlhose on November 28, 2007 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds as if corruption is alive and well in Mt. Pleasant.
Posted by Workingforwhatwehave on November 28, 2007 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ummmmmm....hope they haven't already cut a check for my yard gnomes. I like my yard gnomes, and would like to keep them. But TOMP gets what TOMP wants. Has ANYONE heard when they are going to vote on taking my gnomes? Do I get a vote??? Seriously, there is something wrong with this!!! Alan Young's ducks are making a nasty mess all over town hall!!!! The tax payers will get to clean it up.
Posted by bigwhip on November 28, 2007 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This town council now looks like our good buddies in Columbia. They can't seem to get it right.
Posted by Kerry on November 28, 2007 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If a petition was started in an effort to convince the state Attorney General to investigate the actions of the Mount Pleasant Town Council, Mayor, and town attorney regarding this matter, how many would be willing to sign it?
I for one am totally fed up with the ongoing idiocy being demonstrated on a daily basis by this sorry group of public officials and intend to do something about it.
Posted by SCgal on November 28, 2007 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, why waste my taxpayer money by having employees use company time to write a memo, read a memo, and write a check for a maybe done deal, then the expense of the check and ink that was never cashed?
How many more "checks" do you pre-write and waste with my tax payer money?
Posted by SCgal on November 28, 2007 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can we FOIA the "pre-written check list" to find out if our property if up for town council condemnation?
That would allow us all a few heads up, get our ducks in a row time!
Posted by Workingforwhatwehave on November 28, 2007 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This needs to be done. FOIA violations like this continue. 30 days or 100 dollars for the first violation , then it doubles, then triples, and so on and so on. This is just one of the many dirty dealings being done on a regular basis. They have extended terms, etc. etc. When does it ever end?
Posted by Brant on November 28, 2007 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Shades of the shady dealings of Enron. Remember them? This has about the same aroma...
Posted by afternoondelight on November 28, 2007 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Havn't YOU ever made a mistake when posting a date on a check???
Don't be so negative.
Posted by sailaway on November 28, 2007 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kerry, please, let me be first to sign your petition.
Posted by SCgal on November 28, 2007 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Havn't YOU ever made a mistake when posting a date on a check???
Nope, I wouldn't be so sloppy with the taxpayer's dollars!
Doesn't look to swell in audit's and reviews now does it?
Let's see the checkbook to determine what dates and checks were written prior to and after the 2 million dollar take the property illegally check, along with endorsements dates to confirm if an error in date was made or not!
Posted by afternoondelight on November 28, 2007 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Has the Post and Courier become an advocate for Mark mason?
I don't know let's ask Jay bender( who incidentally has nothing more to do than issue frivilous opinions.)
Posted by SCgal on November 28, 2007 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank goodness the P&C does the leg work for us and reports their research ex. FOIA, interviews, memos!
Good job Prentiss, keep on this one for us!
Posted by RTC on November 28, 2007 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The lies and corruption have been going on for years.
There are so many players in the game anymore that it is hard to point your finger at just a few.
The secretive meetings and the greased palms have gone on for way too long. It is way past time for some major house cleaning.
Posted by GG on November 28, 2007 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just another example of the elitist mindset of the old Mt. Pleasant guard. They do want they want when they want. I love the city of MP, but these guys have got to go before it is completely corrupt. This situation and the absence of affordable housing for professionals like teachers, police, nurses, and firemen is a direct result of these con artists. Bottom line - money, money, money.
Posted by afternoondelight on November 28, 2007 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey SCgal...
Are you Mark Mason's secretary?
Posted by crankyyankee on November 28, 2007 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no private land owership in the State of South Carolina. You simply lease the land from the county. Don't pay your rent next year and see who owns what!
Posted by sailaway on November 28, 2007 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A "frivilous opinion" from Jay Bender? This town of Mt Pleasant seems to think that opinions from anyone who contradicts their way of doing business (and we all know their way is suspect!) is "frivilous." One thing this town council has absolutely no use for is a solid legal opinion. No use at all. They have a town attorney who always knows best and can explain away all their wrongdoing for them. How convenient.
Posted by RTC on November 28, 2007 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kerry, I am already working on bringing some of these people down.
You have to tread very carefully with this bunch, as you can see they believe that they are above the law.
Posted by kennyt on November 28, 2007 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Eminent domain- the right of the Communist Goverment to take anybodys land or business for there own interest. Who voted in these people that would even think of a law like this, I see a Boston Tea Party in the year 2008.
Posted by Kerry on November 28, 2007 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RTC and others, if you would like to team up and draft some form of petition together, please count me as one willing to spend day after day standing in front of Target, Piggly Wiggly, Town Center, or wherever to collect enough signatures to: at the very least place this "crew" running the Town of Mount Pleasant on notice that the citizens have had enough of their antics.
It has become embarrassing to live in this Town, not to mention having to cringe on a daily basis over the latest developments being reported in the newspaper.
We must take back our Town!
Posted by Kerry on November 28, 2007 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My email address is kkc@operamail.com should anyone like to get serious about beginning a campaign to close down the circus operating at 100 Ann Edwards Lane.
Posted by Kerry on November 28, 2007 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The parties involved keep saying they do not want to try this case in the newspaper - why not?
Are they afraid too many citizens will find out what is really going on before a backroom deal can be negotiated where everyone wins except the taxpayer?
Everyone living in Mount Pleasant should begin bombarding the Post and Courier with editorials regarding this case. The town "supposedly" has enough signatures on a petition from a group opposing Mason's project to believe it should be stopped. Maybe it is time to gather a greater number of signatures to stop the Town from confiscating private property just to build an uneccessary park that is not even close to the waterfront. At least the Mason project included some public access to the creek itself at no cost to the Town. Again, no one wants more condos or marinas, but anything would be an improvement over the existing situation that until only recently was totally ignored by the Town.
Posted by bfrank2 on November 28, 2007 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I do not live in Mt. Pleasant but would like to say something. Eminent domain is a necessary evil. However, it has been abused by all governments; local, state and federal. While I do not claim to know all the details of this situation, I can think of no evidence that would have me believe that this action is anything but abuse of government power over the private sector. I, sincerely, hope that the news media keeps on top of this. I also hope that the residents of the Town of Mount Pleasant truly see this for what it is and work towards getting there government under control. I wish you all the best of luck in doing so.
Posted by SCgal on November 28, 2007 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey SCgal...
Are you Mark Mason's secretary?
Nope, why do you ask?
I wouldn't know the fellow if he walked in the room.
Posted by Kerry on November 28, 2007 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just heard Councilman Bustos on the radio discussing Shem Creek. His on-air rationalization for enacting eminent domain in this case is completely ridiculous.
He sounds as dumb as he is.
Posted by Sandy37 on November 28, 2007 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Every once in a while the National News will mention Charleston, which I left many years ago, so I will come and read, only to find that things are still the same, with the same people, doing the same ordinary things. Could you really expect that things would go anything but the dark shade of grey, not really illegal, just not clean white. Personally what is so great about MP anyway? Of course you now have a new bridge, but the same shallow people are still in control...Get out into the world and look around it may give you a new prospective especially if you know the world is watching.
Posted by Workingforwhatwehave on November 28, 2007 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What was his on-air rationalization? Was it WTMA radio? Sorry I missed it!
Posted by poorboy on November 28, 2007 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I too heard the councilman, your right I couildn't wait to get to the phone. Rocky D asked the hard questions but got BS answers. Like "its for the good of the people similar too condeming property to build a road"? I don't see it Joe! Bottom line is the man told you a price and MT P didn't like it. And you said you offered him a "fair market price based on appraisals". Guess what, you can make an appraisal say what ever you want. That's apparent in our overpriced housing market (IN WHICH MT P PREVAILS). Face the music Joe the man didn't want to sell it as he was going to develope it. The property then would have been worth 10 times that! I would have asked also what is the property zoned for. Because IF it requires re-zoning to develope then you got a snowballs chance in hell that it will ever happen!
Posted by locallady on November 28, 2007 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am pretty sure it was zoned for exactly what the owner had the right to build on it. Along with dock permits etc.
Posted by sailaway on November 28, 2007 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As I understand it, this property was actually still in the county until a few months ago, when Council (the same one condemning the property now) annexed it into the town. They also approved the rezoning Mason requested in order to develop the property. He was giving the town a permanent easement on the property allowing full public access to the creek area with boardwalks built at his expense, plus a fishing pier. Of course, he also got approval to build the condo's on the OK site. Mason wanted to develop it in a way that would benefit the town (it would have given us the creek access we don't have now) as well as himself. Immediately Council went about buying/taking it from him, and I guess we know the rest of the story.
Do a search on this website and you can read all the details.
Posted by amazed on November 28, 2007 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is very disturbing that there seems to be a lack of transparency in this matter.
I just hope that if the TOMP gets the property under eminent domain for a public park, that it doesn't turn around in a few years and sell the park for the same type of development that the current owners envision. After all, the TOMP could claim that the park does not raise enough revenue and costs too much to maintain, so it has to be sold. Who gets the huge profits associated with the sale and development then? Any guess? To me eminent domain is overused and abused. There may be an alternative agenda to this case because of the lack of transparency. It is not clear to me.
Posted by Iwritechecksatpointofsale on November 29, 2007 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm a past resident of Mount Pleasant. I currently reside in the Northeast. My family would love to return to the area and I follow the news to keep in touch. Fifteen years ago the OK Tire Company and the surrounding parking lot was a dust filled eyesore and when I visited several months ago and had lunch at Shem Creek those things hadn't changed. While I am less than completely informed I think I understand the gist of the situation: businessman sees opportunity, cranky locals see opportunity to stand up at town council meeting, town government sees opportunity to engage in legal (possibly illegal, right?) battle.
What disgusts me is the complete disregard for diplomacy on the most basic level. Where is the earnest, intelligent, sincere discourse? Why isn't the city government finding a way to use the business people to enrich their community? Buying, selling, condemning.....surely these activities should take place after a voting body exhausts the possibilities of serving the people at no expense to said citizens. We are not discussing the Gaza strip, idealism should come into play in the government of a relatively small community. Is it so preposterous to think the council could have debated and discussed, eventually allowing Mr. Mason and company to use their millions (on a space that was ignored for decades) to the advantage of both citizens and investors?
You can't rob Peter to pay Paul without someone suffering so who is going to suffer? Teachers and students will go without something because suddenly the atmosphere at the OK Tire Company became untenable....??? Ridiculous, just ridiculous.
Posted by whalernut on November 29, 2007 at 5:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MAKE THE LAND A PARK AND BOAT RAMP!!!!!!!AND A PARKING GARAGE! ?"YEAH"!
NEED GAS AND BEER ON THE MARSH TOO!