Suit filed over plan for park
Owner tries to block Mt. Pleasant from condemning land
Mount Pleasant — A local property owner and attorney who wants to develop 24 condos and a marina along Shem Creek filed a lawsuit Wednesday to block the town from condemning the land to convert it into a park.
Attorney Mark Mason, representing more than a half-dozen other individuals and entities with an interest in the property, filed the suit against the town of Mount Pleasant, Mount Pleasant Town Council and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
The roughly 60-page lawsuit asks the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas to declare that Mason and his partners have the right to develop the 1.05-acre tract known as the OK Tire property.
The 11-count lawsuit also asks, in addition to attorney's fees and costs, that the court grant "actual and punitive damages arising from the fraudulent, dishonest, bad faith and sinister actions taken by the defendants to deflate and destroy the value of the plaintiff's property."
"It's indicative of the way this council and this mayor think they can trample on people's rights," Mason said of the issue. "They have trampled long enough."
Town Administrator Mac Burdette referred questions Wednesday to Town Attorney Allen Young. Young said he did not want to discuss the specifics of the lawsuit but said the town's plan for a park would move forward.
"The mayor and council think it is in the best interest of the public to have a park at Shem Creek," said Young, adding that the town has long wanted to build a park on that property. "It's a very special site, it is a very beautiful site and it is a part of the history of Mount Pleasant."
A spokesman for SCE&G said officials there had not yet had the opportunity to review the lawsuit and therefore could not comment.
The issue surrounds a proposed condominium and marina project, including a creek-front boardwalk and floating fishing pier, that Mason and his partner,
Phillip Smith, want to build about 100 yards from Shem Creek.
In 2005, the suit alleges, the town threatened to condemn the property but abandoned its efforts and promised that it would not try again to obtain the land.
According to the suit, developers moved forward with their plans to develop the property as condominiums, a plan that was subsequently approved by the town.
The town has reversed that decision, the lawsuit said, and is seeking to condemn the land for use as a park that has been planned in secret and for which no budget exists.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare "that the so-called 'Shem Creek Park Plan' is an invalid plan for a public project because the plan was never displayed to, or discussed with the public in any open meeting of Town Council, no budget for the project exists, and any formal or informal action in regard to the plan was illegal because it took place by way of polling in secretive executive-session meetings."
Reach James Scott at 745-5855 or at jscott@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
gencon1 (anonymous) says...
Although it would be nice to have a park at Shem Creek, the present owner should be able to do whatever he wants with the land. The town of Mt. Pleasant should not pass new ordinances, or condemn the property at the last minute because a few people think that condos and a marina are a bad idea.
The basic right to do what you want with your property must be preserved. The owner should be able to do as he pleases as long as it meets all of the current zoning regulations.
The develpoer checked all of the regulations prior to purchasing the property to see if the development was feasible. The decision to invest his money into this property was based on this review of the laws. If the town can arbitrarily change the laws, or condemn the property to stop the legal development of the property, they are usurping the very basis that people depend on to plan their lives.
How can a society place value on property and make proper decisions if the very laws in place to regulate the planning are not followed. Municipalities are pushing the envelope on this issue everywhere. Partial takings of property must be stopped. if a municipality is going to take this land, it should have to compensate the owner at the value it is at it's current zoned use.
If the Town attempts to devalue the land through a zoning action, it should be held responsible for the loss of value to the owner.
October 25, 2007 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
desspec (anonymous) says...
Mt. Pleasant's actions are of good intent, but "bad law." Rights and freedom are being denied by a government who is supposed to protect such. I wonder if anyone from either side of the argument would object to another tire store going in there.
October 25, 2007 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jammanofdi (anonymous) says...
Personally, I hope that Mt. Pleasant wins this suit. The Shem Creek area is one of the last few spots in Mount Pleasant that developers haven't had their way with and I believe that it should stay that way. These Mark Mason and Richard Coen characters are selling what is left of Mt. Pleasant to out-of-towners who could care less about parks and public access for our residents. Because of such growth, Mt. Pleasant and Charleston are losing the charm and character that they were known for. I am not opposed to growth, as long as it is responsible and respectable growth. What I believe will eventually happen on both sides of Shem Creek is neither respectable, nor responsible. It is simply rich people trying to make a quick buck and become that much richer. Kudos to Mt. P for finally realizing that the value of our land is not always monetary!
October 25, 2007 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
atlplh (anonymous) says...
Why does the Town of Mt Pleasant feel that it needs to condemn this particular piece of property all of a sudden? The OK Tire store doesn't even have a very good view of the creek. Why did Mt Pleasant not try to condemn the old Trawler Restarant (which has much nicer creek access) property? When Condos were announced for this piece of property I seem to remember a huge party being thrown with fireworks, a band and the governor in attendance.
October 25, 2007 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
adkmtbiker (anonymous) says...
Bring on the Park!
October 25, 2007 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCgal (anonymous) says...
"Personally, I hope that Mt. Pleasant wins this suit. The Shem Creek area is one of the last few spots in Mount Pleasant that developers haven't had their way with and I believe that it should stay that way."
That thought could be stated about any development in MtP.
Why should this landowner suffer because it's one of the last few spots to be developed?
MtP should have created a master plan and lay out years ago to avoid what gets developed or what doesn't!
Don't blame the landowner for being one of the last to develop.
I say go with the awesome development-- bring MtP right up there with SF Bay developments, Baltimore Harbor, Norfolk's Waterside, and more!
In my opinion, council doesn't look so grand on how this issue was dealt with!
Hope they don't ever want to "condemn" my property to curtail a previously welcomed development some day!
October 25, 2007 at 5:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tigerfish (anonymous) says...
Bring on the park? What park?
Have you been there? The noise from the traffic on coleman is deafining and the exhaust fumes add a certain flavor to the air. Enjoy Dewey the Drunk leaving one of the many bars as he hops the curb and turfs the daisy's. Guess who is going to be paying for that? Taxpayers get out your checkbooks because instead of having free access to a fishing pier and board walk you are going have to go to the bar and buy a drink to enjoy the creek and then pay for Dewey's drunken daisy trampling. In all seriousness, the only things getting trampled now are the rights of private citizens to own property. So yeah bring on the park but don't forget your checkbook, hold on to your children tight and get out the bugspray!
October 25, 2007 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jammanofdi (anonymous) says...
Okay "SCGal",
Obviously you are not as much "SC" as you say that you are. If you enjoy San Francisco, Baltimore and Norfolk as much as you say you do, then go back and enjoy those congested urban nightmares. Mount Pleasant isn't a big city - it is "The TOWN of Mount Pleasant". These views (which are quickly disappearing) are ours, as taxpayers and local citizens. Although I have only lived in Charleston for 4 years, I am an SC native and am also involved in the construction industry here in the lowcountry. As I stated before, I am not opposed to growth, as long as it is responsible and respectable. This is, in my opinion, neither - and I don't believe that a specific view or a piece of our history should be auctioned to the highest bidder.
October 25, 2007 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCgal (anonymous) says...
No need to move back, just upscale Shem Creek and don't have a council play dtiry tricks on obtaining property!!
BTW, most towns have well thought out plans and developement so looks like your construction involvement has allowed the space to roam through the lowcountry without any roadblocks thus far so why stop now!
October 26, 2007 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jammanofdi (anonymous) says...
I can barely decipher what you are trying to say, but...
Shem Creek never has been an upscale development - it's a fishing village, so why would you want to change the face of something into something that it's not? And I am still at the mercy of town and city planners when it comes to construction projects - we all are. I just believe that it is about time that projects were decided based on their merit, need or value to a community. Too many developments are based on who is doing the developing, or about how much cash or tax base can be raised. This, in my honest opinion, is unfair to residents that are being forced out of neighborhoods that they can no longer afford to live in. Shem Creek is (based on this current lawsuit) very popular just as it is. So why change it and block out people that cannot afford a 2 bedroom, $1.5 million condo? Those people already have an area to call home. It's called Kiawah, Seabrook, East Bay, I'on, Sullivan's Island and Isle of Palms (as well as half of the current Mount Pleasant). Please leave it alone...
October 26, 2007 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tigerfish (anonymous) says...
The value of that property is already so high no ordinary person could afford to live there at this point anyway. Why not have the tax money from the building to help pay for schools and cleaning up areas like six mile and snowden? Have you seen where the location of this "Park" is? It's not ideal for a greenspace and it's not even on the creek. Ideally they should condemn one of those new 4 million dollar houses cluttering up the otherside of the creek. They actually are on Shem creek and have a view of the water! I know the OK tire store is a charming part of Lowcountry scenery. What I don't know is why no one raised a stink when that big blue office building was built? Are they going to condemn that too? It's on the same lot and would be an ideal place for a gravel parking lot for the new "Park". I feel like you can't stop development that has already been approved by the town. And you can't take peoples property, especially for less than it is worth...it is just wrong.
October 26, 2007 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCgal (anonymous) says...
ahhhhhh, so you don't want one developer doing his thing by building the expensive condos so let town council condemn the property even though the project was approved beforehand--
Hey, what happened to the perserving green space along Hwy 17 @ Oakland Plantation- was that not a green space that needed perserving yet in Mt. P?
Funny, what gets the blessings and what does not!!
October 26, 2007 at 5:15 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.