Mount Pleasant says check cutting was aboveboard
OK Tire Documents
Click here to download PDF documents pertaining to the condemnation and purchase of the disputed OK Tire property.
MOUNT PLEASANT — The $2,285,000 check to buy the OK Tire property was issued prior to Town Council voting to use its power of eminent domain because the town needed to move quickly if council approved the condemnation, Town Administrator Mac Burdette said Wednesday.
Town Attorney Allen Young requested the check in an Oct. 3 memo to Charlie Potts, director of administrative services. The memo stated, "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 requisition form for the check states, "Mark Mason/OK Tire property/condemnation."
Burdette said the Oct. 5 check was issued "so Allen would have everything lined up" for the Oct. 9 vote. "It wasn't like he (Young) was going to the Bahamas. We issue checks all the time that are never spent. It was reasonable for him to have that check in hand. We didn't spend any money until council authorized it," Burdette said.
S.C. Press Association Attorney Jay Bender and attorney Mark Mason, an owner of the property, have said that issuing the check four days before the council vote gave the appearance of a secret decision by council to move forward with the condemnation. They said the sequence of events appeared to be a violation of the state Freedom of Information Act. Mason and Phillip Smith, a co-owner of the property, have sued to have the condemnation dismissed.
Municipal Association of South Carolina Executive Director Howard Duvall said he disagreed with Bender and Mason. The Oct. 5 check was good planning on the part of Young, he said.
"I don't think it would be out of the ordinary. The issuance of a check is just an administrative action. You're just getting prepared for an action," Duvall said.
The requisition of the check Oct. 4 was part of a "natural progression" toward council's Oct. 9 vote to condemn the 1.07-acre property near Shem Creek if the owners rejected the town's final offer of $2,285,000, Burdette said.
Burdette said that council authorized Young to request issuance of the check pursuant to discussions it held in a Sept. 11 executive session. "It was very clear from that meeting where council was going," he said. According to minutes of that meeting, council voted to direct Young "to proceed as discussed in executive session regarding acquisition of property for the purposes of water access."
The source of the $2,285,000 in town funds that was authorized for condemnation of the OK Tire property was not discussed publicly at the Oct. 9 vote, nor on Oct. 10 when Young said the town would condemn the land. It also was not discussed whether the town had appropriated the money in its budget.
Young said in response to an FOIA request from Mason that the $2,285,000 was appropriated as part of the budget approved by council in June. According to documents the town provided Mason, the money for condemnation of his land comes from the town's tax increment financing fund. One of the documents lists $3 million for "water access acquisition" but does not specify the OK Tire property.
Councilman Joe Bustos disputed Bender and Mason's opinion that the town acted in secret to condemn the property.
"That's baloney," Bustos said. "Mark Mason is just trying to create something. Getting a piece of paper prepared and spending money are two different things."
Through a spokeswoman, Mayor Harry Hallman declined comment because the condemnation is in litigation. Councilman Gary Santos said, "I feel confident that we were given the right information. I'm just following the attorney's advice." Councilman Paul Gawrych has said there was no secrecy involved in council's decision to pursue condemnation. Other council members did not respond to e-mails for comment.
The $2,285,000 check was based on a Sept. 25 appraisal of the OK Tire property by Hartnett Realty Co. Inc. Appraiser Thomas Hartnett used sales data for 1557 Ben Sawyer Blvd., 515 Coleman Blvd., 403 Coleman Blvd. and the OK Tire property at 469 Coleman Blvd.
Hartnett stated in the appraisal that his opinion was that the most recent sales of 1557 Ben Sawyer Blvd. and the OK Tire Property are the best indicators of the value of the OK Tire land. Based on his analysis, Hartnett said, the market value of the OK Tire tract was $69 per square foot. The property is 33,106 square feet, so that works out to $2,284,314, which the appraisal rounds to $2,285,000. The appraisal states that the zoning and land in the parcel would allow for about 12 condominiums.
An appraisal done for SunTrust bank by Paul K. Moore & Associates values the OK Tire property at $4.5 million. Mason said that appraisal more accurately reflects the value of the tract.
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 44 comment(s)
Posted by locallady on November 29, 2007 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hartnett is shady, The TOMP is shady. Where do I sign the petition?
Posted by whalernut on November 29, 2007 at 4:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Personnaly I belive the city should approach the condemnation in a better manner. Private Property is what it is. Private!
The possible revenues that the property could have generated are not being taked into account for. I believe that Mr. Mason is due a percentage of all future revenues that the land makes in the future if aquired by a local government.
2,285,000.00 is no way possible a reasonable price for that land.
Whalernut,
Resident old village
Mt.Pleasant
Posted by sjmehlhose on November 29, 2007 at 6:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Emminent domain was never meant to be a means for the government to steal property from one private citizen to bestow it on another. It was ONLY meant as a means for government to acquire property for infrastructure such as roads, etc. This is totally corrupt and is the type of abuse of power that you normally see only in places like Detroit under people like Kwame Kilpatrick, etc. The people of Mt. Pleasant need to throw these bums out on their collective ears!!! Besides, this pre-written check thing stinks to high heaven of collusion!
Posted by meggettcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 7:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, its up to the citizens of Mt Pleasant to take care of business. Let your elected officials know they are on borrowed time and will not be re-elected if the town continues down their corrupt road. Burdette and Young are corrupt as can be, IMHO. I honestly believe that the next town council meeting, half the town should show up and demand to be heard about this corruption.
Posted by locallady on November 29, 2007 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is my question! What is tax increment financing? I have just looked it up and it seems like it is to be used to develop blighted areas that would otherwise not be developed, also freezes tax revenues. Is it true that it takes money away from our schools? Someone who knows something about this please explain this to me. I honestly don't understand this and want to know if it is the right way to condemn this property.
Posted by SCgal on November 29, 2007 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Again, how many tax dollars are being spent to pre-write checks when you do not even have a final vote yet?
What other votes in the past has the decision been made and a memo written to issue pre-written checks on behalf of the tax paying citizens in TMP?
Do you pre-write all checks for each and every vote that involves a monetary transaction for TofMP, in order to moving swiftly on the issue?
Guess the theory yesterday about writing the wrong date as a possible issue/mistake theory is blown out of the water now!
In my opinion, all need to face the music on this entire deal and tell the tax paying citizens what is the truth, the entire truth surrounding this matter!
What do the citizens have to look forwared to next from Town Council?
The bus lot, the fire training center, Hungry Neck, Shem Creek, roads and development, Coleman Blvd, the planted truck icon at the nursery, higher real estate with not many locations available for our teachers, police officers, fire men, nurses............
Posted by SCgal on November 29, 2007 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wonder where the memo/check for the original 5 or 6 million dollar offer is? That should be available for us to review also correct?
Posted by SCgal on November 29, 2007 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Excellent comment left yesterday from the other article!
Thank you to Iwritechecksatpointofsale
Posted by Iwritechecksatpointofsale on November 29, 2007 at 12:51 a.m.
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 charlestonnative68 on November 29, 2007 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't disagree with what the TOMP is doing but the way they are doing it. I live less than a mile from the site and drive by it everyday and it pains me to think that there is going to be another eye sore building on that property.
Whatever the value of the property is TOMP should pay for it nothing more and nothing less.
Posted by sjmehlhose on November 29, 2007 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All of the politicians involved in this theft of private property for the benefit of another private concern should be recalled and probably sent to jail for their crime.
Posted by SCgal on November 29, 2007 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
another eye sore building on that property?
No, a beautiful upscale development like the numerous others town council has allowed throughout MTP.
Council should not selective not allow a development because "it's the only piece of property left" in the area, especially when the gave the impression all was well and let it be developed and then switched gears and when they did not get their way, then pulled out their silly tatics!
And if they pulled these antics this time, it only means it could happen over and over and over again on each and ever issue for our town!
Posted by sjmehlhose on November 29, 2007 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets say you bought your house for $150,000 and a year later somebody wants to buy your house from you for $110,000 and you turn them down flat. They then go to friends on your local city council and propose that they use emminent domain to get themselves the lower price on your house and force you to leave your house and take a loss. That is what is going on here. This is such an obvious abuse of the takings clause that the people of Mt. Pleasant should be at these meetings demanding the politicians heads on a platter for even thinking about committing this kind of crime.
Posted by sjmehlhose on November 29, 2007 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, and the new owner promises to paint the house that they stole a more pleasing color to make everybody happy.
Posted by charlestonnative68 on November 29, 2007 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't disagree with you SCgal, I am not a proponent of eminent domain either, in my opinion Mt. Pleasant has been raped. I think both parties should come to the table and discuss what's fair and TOMP does what it takes to get the land (without using ED).
Posted by sjmehlhose on November 29, 2007 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you used emminent domain to take this property, then it should ONLY be used for the public good, such as turning it into a PUBLIC park, or a police station, or some other public use project. Taking property from one private owner to give it to another private owner is immoral at best. Let the private parties work out a sale without the threat of a forced sale by corrupt government and let the market determine the true value.
Posted by Nacho on November 29, 2007 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A person who wants to build a house in the woods is a developer, but a person who already has a house in the woods is a conservationist. To me, it is hypocritical for anyone who has ever built or bought a new house, condo, hotel, or whatever to criticize someone who is building now. It's all a matter of timing.
Posted by sailaway on November 29, 2007 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's not forget that if and when the town finally takes this piece of property, then they have to put a lot more money into the site to do the things included, for free to the town, with Mason's plan. He paid for everything (boardwalk, fishing pier, facilities, etc.) in his plan; now, the town gets to pay for it all. What a deal for us taxpayers!
Posted by SCgal on November 29, 2007 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So for every future development can we all create a "reason" why the land should NOT be developed and have town council pull the ED card from now on?
Can we only hope TofMP will be looking forward to numerous parks in our future rather than upscale developments?
Posted by SCgal on November 29, 2007 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sailaway do you know how much cleanup will need to be done on the property in question- any underground tanks, leaked oil, gas, asbestos in the building that the town will need to invest in for this "park".
Wonder how many tax payers have been polled in regards to using this park located off a major highway directly beside the marsh.
Posted by miki on November 29, 2007 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The check thing actually makes sense to me. At my non-profit we often pre-write checks for a board meeting. Once the expense is approved by the board, the needed signatures are provided and business can move ahead. No one is left waiting for funds, etc.
Now that is just one SMALL nut in this otherwise ridiculous tale of Bad Business going on on MP.
Posted by SCgal on November 29, 2007 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And if the expense is NOT approved what do you do with the written checks?
So council could produce a written and voided check that falls in-line with each accounting entry?
Wouldn't this practice throw up red flags during audits and if one was creative enough make for some quite shady opportunities?
Posted by locallady on November 29, 2007 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://emdo.blogspot.com/2007/11/reactio...
Cut and paste this, the issue is now making ED watchdog groups.
Posted by blackwoman on November 29, 2007 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
With the pending construction & opening of the park at the base of the Ravenel Bridge, Mount Pleasant needs a park on Shem Creek about as much as we need more traffic lights on rte. 17. Spend my taxdollars on something more useful and beneficial. How about foul weather shelters at the CARTA stops so individuals don't have to stand in the rain while waiting on a bus? All town coucil members involved in this fracas should be removed immediately. Mr. Mason & his partner have an expectancy interest in what monies that property could produce. I have great faith that our citizens care more about individual liberties than a small swath of land. This is embarrassing! The national media just needs to get involved.
Posted by RTC on November 29, 2007 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think the town is right in the way they conduct business, but I still don't want to see a wall of condos sitting on Coleman Blvd. This is the only remaining view of the harbor from this roadway, unless you count the brief glimpse you might get crossing the bridge.
The condos would have to be built high up with underground parking, as the space there is limited.
I understand that they also want to build on that little spit of land in the marsh known as Bailey's Island.
This a lose-lose situation no matter which way you look at it.
Posted by SCgal on November 29, 2007 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is the only remaining view of the harbor from this roadway
Too bad TofMTP didn't create a master plan to begin with, but they don't have the right to scream ED because it's the first, last, or only "view" left!
How many other town "views" have been eliminated thus far?
Anyone can complain a "view" has been intercepted by almsot any development.
I think the development planned will be a much better "view" than the existing building. I think the development "view" will be a nice, upscale for the area.
It's not about the "view" anymore, it's about how council has conducted it's business concerning this entire deal from start to finish, in my opinion!
Posted by Kerry on November 29, 2007 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ATTENTION MASON and SMITH:
Please take a deep breath and blow down the house of cards known as Mount Pleasant Town Council so it falls down on top of the Mayor, then squash their mouthpiece attorney and do it soon!
The Natives are getting restless.
Posted by GG on November 29, 2007 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I know there was a post yesterday re: getting a petition together. If the person who posted their email address could do it again, I would happily help.
This whole process by the TOMP scares me. I own a tiny piece of property on Alston Point. When will they try to take that from me?
Posted by Kerry on November 29, 2007 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
According to Joe Bustos on WTMA's Rocky D show yesterday:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but Council members are "paid the big bucks" to make tough decisions.
This doofus attempt at humor pretty much says it all.
Right Joe, just as long as the citizens do not find out where the "big bucks" come from.
The only thing made clear during his "performance" on the radio yesterday is that intelligence is not a prerequisite to serve on Mount Pleasant Town Council.
Posted by sailaway on November 29, 2007 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kerry, you never disappoint. Your words paint vivid pictures! Don't you think they have gotten themselves into a mess they can't now get out of? No where to turn type of thing. The big question is, who exactly on that council lead them to where they are today. I should say where WE are today, because like it or not, all tax payers are in it with them. Who among them is so hot-headed and stubborn they can't think straight?
Posted by gencon1 on November 29, 2007 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Mason intends to use the property in a manner consistent with the zoning applied to it by the TOMP. For anyone to say he shouldn't be able to is just plain wrong!
Posted by Kerry on November 29, 2007 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Again, if anyone is interested in drafting some form of petition to oppose this abuse of eminent domain, please email kkc@operamail.com. I would like to collect at least 500 verifiable signatures from registered voters.
Posted by Kerry on November 29, 2007 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you are as sick of "Allen Young says this, Allen Young says that" as I am, then it is time to do something about it and make Allen Young listen to us.
Posted by sailaway on November 29, 2007 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kerry, speaking of getting paid the big bucks to be on council, remember this from the Chas City Paper 10/07?
"Disclosure forms filed for the Sept. 19 town election show that Glasson raised $13,455 for his campaign," the same number that Glasson initially quoted to City Paper. However, on Jan. 16, 2007, Glasson filed a final disclosure form reporting a $2,000 donation from Anthony McAlister, CMP's developer, dated Oct. 27, upping the total to $15,455. CMP first came to the Planning Commission two weeks prior, on Oct. 18.
Posted by Kerry on November 29, 2007 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Excellent, excellent - sailaway - I do recall that exact article indeed, along with the flippant attitude of both Glasson and Collins upon being challenged.
If a "jounalist" working for any local news agency really wanted to make a name for his or her self, then there is not a better "Watergate" waiting to happen than what is thinly veiled as town government in Mount Pleasant.
Believe me, I have no idea why this particular subject (Shem Creek) has become such an all consuming issue for me. I have no interest or alliance with anyone involved, and am merely a regular Mount Pleasant resident of ten years who tries to pay attention. I was born in Charleston in 1959 and have never lived any place outside the tri-county area. Maybe that is my problem - the actions of the various local politicians over time have pushed me to the brink of sanity. In fact, I am almost ready to declare my self a candidate, since you have to be somewhat crazy to consider seeking elected office in the first place.
Thanks for the support...if elected, I promise my first official act will be to punch the town attorney right in the nose.
Posted by Workingforwhatwehave on November 29, 2007 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kerry.....you got my vote!!!!!
Posted by SCgal on November 29, 2007 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You got my vote too!
Posted by Sandy37 on November 29, 2007 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a suggestion for Mt Pleasant residence. Demand the advertising of Town Council Meeting and the subject, make it open to the public. My City Council even is televised, so every citizen knows what is going on. Eminent Domaine is a very sad law. This is almost laughable when you think that building anything there could be a pile of rubble next year in one of the Hurricans you all get, then what, FEMA???
Posted by Kerry on November 29, 2007 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, I have two votes already - thanks!
With voter turnout at around 11%, I only need a couple more to be elected.
If you are not disgusted enough already, just wait until you pick up the latest Moultrie News and read about what "the mighty Oz" and his henchmen are trying to do to town planning commission member Steve Brock. We surely are not in Kansas anymore.
All is not lost however, thanks to a superb letter to the editor in that same publication from a Rick Stanton casting shame where it belongs the most - on the Mayor.
Posted by Kerry on November 29, 2007 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The petition will be a simple one:
We the undersigned registered voters are adamantly opposed to the abusive use of the power of eminent domain by the Town of Mount Pleasant to condemn private property where public need does not exist:
If the Post and Courier could possibly offer an online poll to gauge response to this issue it would be greatly appreciated.
Suggestions welcome at kkc@operamail.com
Thank you.
Posted by JohnS on November 29, 2007 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe the Appraisal should be looked at by an outside firm. This property is a very unique one of a kind property with no real comp.
If a property is going to be condemed for public use the price that should be paid needs to be the retail price he could have recieved from the sale of the properties value highest and best use.
Posted by locallady on November 29, 2007 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One of the largest banks in the US had an expert appraisal done on the propery before they made the loan. IT is about twice the amount the owners were offered. If it was a fair amount offered then why didn't they write a check to Mason/Smith instead of the County clerks office. They could have done that a few days before they voted also. You are right there are NO COMPS.
Posted by SCgal on November 29, 2007 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't forget the property is the last "view" lot of Shem Creek~ the price should be priceless!
Posted by my2cents on November 29, 2007 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is truly a travisty of what is suppose to be a free democratic society. I have been following this with great interest from the very beginning, not because of the drama that is now unfolding, but because the former owner (Mr. Albritton) was a friend of mine. I spent many a time looking out his back garage doors at the incredible view before me. I knew that one day he would be able to use that view to give him the retirement that he so richly deserved. Everyone and anyone who ever stepped inside the OK Tire store knew that someday that property would be lifted to a higher purpose.
Mr. Mason was the person with the finance and the desire to make that happen. He presented, what I thought, was a very decent plan. His plan not only allowed for him to provide a profit for his endeavor but also a way to be a true partner with the community. The town, at the time, thought so as well and encouraged his development of his project. It seems that there was strong support to move forward. Of course not all were happy with "the development" and it seemed to me that Mr. Mason took great care in understanding the concerns of those that wanted public acess and found a way to incorporate public use of the property while giving that area a much needed facelift at his expense.
I love the charm and beauty of Shem Creek as much as anyone. I have spent countless hours by her shore and along her silky waters. I can't see how Mr. Mason's plan is going to do anything but enhance her image and give her the refinement she deserves.
We could spend hours debating about projects that have moved forward along our coast line that seem not to have the same thought for public access or conservation as Mr. Mason's plan. Wild Dunes for one. But my message to the town leaders is this: Let the man move forward with his project. Work with him with the communities' best interests to utilize that small slice of paradise to its fullest potential for all. Mostly, stop wasting time, energy and OUR money by waging, in my opinion, a grossly unjust battle. You had your chance to buy that land the same as Mr. Mason. Where were your high ideals and "concern" then? Stop this already pitful display of good ol' boy politics and start doing something productive for the people you are sworn to serve.
That is just my2cents
Posted by locallady on November 29, 2007 at 9:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This could not have been said better!!!!!