Town files suit to gain Shem Creek propertyBy James Scott
The Post and Courier
Friday, November 2, 2007
Mount Pleasant — The town filed a condemnation lawsuit this week aimed at halting a proposed condo and marina project on Shem Creek that it wants instead to develop into a park. The four-page suit, filed Wednesday in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, states that the town has appraised the land and determined that the owner, Shem Creek II LLC, should be paid $2.28 million in compensation. "We are trying to establish a public park for our citizens — our children, senior citizens and future generations," Town Attorney Allen Young said. "It is our position and opinion that it is a public purpose." The issue surrounds a proposed 24-unit condominium and marina project that calls for a creek-front boardwalk and floating fishing pier to be built on 1.05 acres on Shem Creek known as the OK Tire property. The project, which will be built about 100 yards from Shem Creek, is being developed by Mark Mason and Phillip Smith. The town filed its notice of condemnation last month. Mason, a local lawyer and owner of the property, rejected the notice and responded last week with a 60-page lawsuit against the town and Town Council members aimed at blocking the condemnation. Mason also accused the town of devaluing his property as well as developing its plan for a park in secret and in violation of the state's open-meeting laws. Mason said Thursday that the town's $2.28 million offer is based on a bogus appraisal that accounts only for a proposed 12 condos, despite the fact that his plan calls for 24 condos that were approved by the town's planning department. Mason also said he has appraisals from his bank that show his two parcels are worth more than $7.5 million. By seizing the OK Tire property, he said the adjoining property will be rendered essentially worthless. "Mount Pleasant Town Council and this mayor have no respect whatsoever for the law, ethical practices or for fair dealing. This is going to stop right here, right now," Mason said. "It is as simple as that." Young disputed Mason's claim of having final approval from the town to build 24 condos. He also said the town has planned all along to build a park on that property and has conducted all its meetings lawfully. Young said the town is not interested in all of Mason's property, just the OK Tire property. "He marketed the whole project to us, and the council reviewed a number of options but believes, as they did initially, that what is in the best interest of the town, and factoring in the money, is the OK Tire site, the one acre," Young said. Reach James Scott at 745-5855 or jscott@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools
|
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net 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 charleston.net. 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 website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 21 comment(s)
|
Posted by scchickens on November 2, 2007 at 5:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anybody should be able to do what they want with their property. This is ROBBERY. I can't believe this is legal. Talk about a rotten group of people!
Posted by gingerisler on November 2, 2007 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Council is SO wrong in what they are doing. By only going after the front parcel (OK Tire) they are rendering the 2nd parcel useless. The owners have gone through the proper channels during the entire process and are now getting the short end of the stick. The project is in accordance to current zoning for the area.
Posted by mggoose2000 on November 2, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the town of Mt. Pleasant citizens let this happen, they should all be aware that they've opened the door for the Council to condemn any property they want as well as appraising your property at what value they want to pay. This is robbery and it should be stopped. Get up off of your butts, Mr. and Mrs. Mt. Pleasant and put a stop to this before it goes any further.
Posted by desspec on November 2, 2007 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good intentions, bad law. Again, rights and freedom are being denied by a government who is supposed to protect such.
Posted by Nacho on November 2, 2007 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This condemnation is just wrong on a lot of levels. Question: who is going to drive to the one acre "Shem Creek Park" between an office building and a hotel to sit on a bench that isn't even on Shem Creek? Answer: nobody. Is it worth destroying an honest person's development project that has followed ALL of the rules and robbing him of his investment? No! The proposed PUBLIC docks and fishing pier at NO cost to the town that were going to be included in Mark Mason's development would be much more valuable to people wanting to experience Shem Creek than a one acre piece of landscaping that is not even on the water. But the town would rather spend 2.28 million dollars of tax payers money, which will be a lot more by the time it's over with. To me, it seems like the Town of Mt Pleasant has another agenda that we don't know about. The current OK Tire store is an eye sore and the docks are a hangout for crackheads, so why is everybody so worried about "ruining Shem Creek?" Anything would be an improvement. If Mt Pleasant gets away with this, where will it end?
Posted by blackwoman on November 2, 2007 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just what Mount Pleasant needs a huge lawsuit bill!
The town will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this. The entire issue should be deemed moot due to the self-serving nature of Town Council. Gee, wouldn't it be just grand if the President of the United States could extend his term in office without people voting on it? This town is getting scarry! Heck, our government stole land from the Native Americans so lets just steal Mr. Mason's land too! Iran isn't looking like such a dictatorship afterall!
Posted by Kerry on November 2, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is the complete version of my Nov. 1 letter in the Post & Courier concerning this subject before it was butchered by the editor:
The sudden spurious effort by the Town of Mount Pleasant to save Shem Creek is the equivalent of sending a rescue mission to search for the H.L. Hunley submarine tomorrow. It is a well recognizable fact that both went down a long time ago. The decision to exercise the controversial power of eminent domain to condemn private property on the northern side of the creek for public use, resulting in the owners filing a major lawsuit against the town, is just the latest example of the interminable blundering by this council and mayor. Besides a nostalgic memory of how things used to be, exactly what remains that is worth preserving along this now heavily polluted tidal inlet that flows between a haven of boisterous bars and tacky restaurants, rickety docks and sprawling parking lots? Certainly the plan to construct a few condos, a small marina, and a public accessible boardwalk with a floating fishing pier is no worse than any other project the town has approved in the area without the slightest concern about marring the view of the sunrise, sunset, and shrimp boats. Nevertheless, acting in socialistic fashion on a perceived overriding public sentiment, the town is going to deny the property owner both the right to receive fair market value for the property and the opportunity to develop it. With citizen confidence in the current political officials and leadership of Mount Pleasant already suffering because of the recent allegations and ongoing investigations involving bribery, ethics violations, and dirty dealing, it is inconceivable that negotiations concerning the acquisition of this purportedly vital piece of land continue to take place in closed-door executive sessions. Whatever the outcome of the costly ensuing litigation the town is entangling itself in merely to build a mediocre park at Shem Creek, it is evident the funds and energy could be put to better use elsewhere such as the Memorial Waterfront Park at the base of the Ravenel Bridge. Optimistically, the next election for council and mayor in Mount Pleasant, which will unfortunately not be for some time thanks to the incumbents voting this summer to extend their own terms by fourteen months, may also result in a parallel with the history of the Hunley – no survivors.
Posted by harleylu on November 2, 2007 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Doesn't Mt. Pleasant already have parks located at Alhambra Hall and the old bridge in the Old Village? Aren't they in the process of building a new park directly under the Arthur Ravenel bridge? Does Mt. Pleasant really need another park? It's not as if these other parks don't offer views of the harbor. The Town of Mt. Pleasant is going too far in their efforts to claim the OK Tire property through iminent domain!
Posted by Kerry on November 2, 2007 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
More than likely, the real agenda is that the Town wants to make it look like they are fighting a developer for a change, while history shows that all they have done is surrender to them in the past.
I can already hear them whispering behind closed doors:
"Let's win this one for the little guy, John Q. Public now, then we can give away the farm later without having to apologize for it."
Will we need to draw a number and take turns sitting on the bench in this fabulous new one-acre park beside beautiful Coleman Boulevard to "enjoy the view"?
Do you think Ronnie Boals and Richard Cohen will suspend the ongoing "parking war" allowing the multitudes of visitors that just cannot wait to sit on this bench to use all of their well marked spaces?
Plans are even in the works for a model of a shrimp trawler to be displayed on the site. Surely a sign that the end really is near for Shem Creek.
Posted by sailaway on November 2, 2007 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Where is Councilmember Bustos in this whole mess? For weeks you couldn't read the paper without enduring his accusations and opinions on every subject, but now he's nowhere to be found. He was one of Mason's most vocal critics, even though Mason's plan was actually compatible with the Town's own planning goals for Shem Creek. Looks like Bustos has lead Council right off a cliff in a political stunt that has backfired big time and will cost the town a lot of money. Kerry is right. Public confidence is low, and this behavior won't help anything.
Posted by RTC on November 2, 2007 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have never had any respect for the mayor, and I have lost all respect for town council for awhile now.I don't know how most of these people got into office in the first place.
It certainly was not by my vote.
As I read the articles in the P&C everyday I see that every municipality or county is having serious issues.
This not just a "Mt. Pleasant thing", folks.
This is just another example of corrupt government on a smaller scale.
Posted by Kerry on November 2, 2007 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am just a normal Mount Pleasant resident with nothing to gain from opposing the Town in this matter. I have never met or spoken to any of the parties involved, and doubt I could afford the taxes and insurance alone on one of the proposed condo units. I also do not own a fifty foot boat.
I am simply just boiling mad that all of the important decisions affecting the quality of life enjoyed by residents East of the Cooper are being made by this same group of apparent incompetents.
Good points by all here today - hopefully these opinions will translate to a change from the prevailing aristocracy at election time.
Posted by williamwallace on November 2, 2007 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting how in the second to last paragraph if this article the Town of Mount Pleasant Attorney states, "... the town is not interested in all of Mason's property, just the OK Tire property."
It's right there in black and white. The Town admits that the property belongs to Mr. Mason. Dot. Period. End of discussion. What has happened to our country when a government can completely ignore personal property rights? This is a cornerstone of our constitutional republic.
Every citizen in Mt. Pleasant, Charleston, South Carolina, etc. should be OUTRAGED with this lawsuit. Think it can't happen to you? Think again. Who's to say the next "park" they'll want to build won't be on your waterfront property?
We The People must band together and protest this atrocity!
Posted by Mayor on November 2, 2007 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK Tire property is not on Shem Creek. Allen Young is out of his league. Having forgotten more than he knows, the town will end of losing Millions and never acquiring the said property. Mark Mason has hit "his home run", he'll never have to work again. The town wouldn't be doing this to the previous owner, Mr. Albritton. Mount Pleasant Council has become quite a comedy. It is hard to stand out as totally incompetent, but our town has! Guys, you're f------ embarassing! The town is now too big for the buffoons we've elected. There are cities that have hired corporations to run everything for them, let's check into this. It is better than the inept crap that's going on. I really can't believe how bad it's become, they can't manage a damn thing right.
Posted by Kerry on November 2, 2007 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally, I do not want to see even so much as another ant hill built in Mount Pleasant by the ants, but Mason and Smith have to win this fight for the sake of common sense. Believe it or not, there are a few residents left in this town who have some.
Unfortunately, none of them are on council.
Posted by palmetto1 on November 2, 2007 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does anyone find it odd how after reviewing old articles on this site about the issue (do a search for Mark Mason or Shem Creek and have them display in chronological order) - one can see first hand that something funny is going on?
It can be read that at one point in time Mt. P offered Mason a little over $6m for the dirt. Now it's a little over $2m. Read more and find an article from July 19, and one can see that Mt. P annexed the property and the Planning Commission accepted submitted plans for a 24 unit condo, 24 private boat slips, marina permits, PUBLIC BENCHES, PICNIC TABLES, BBQ GRILLS, BOARDWALK, 100 FEET OF PUBLIC DOCKSPACE (besides that for private slips).
http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/jul/...
Wait a second. Isn't that A PARK? So let's get this straight. The DEVELOPER has PLANNED to essentially BUILD a park as part of the development. In fact, it's a BETTER park than what Mt. P wants to build. Mt. P is talking about benches and views. Oh, and a shrimpboat model. We can't forget the shrimp boat model. Mr. Mason wants to not only provide benches and views, but also a boardwalk and some public dock space. (No shrimp boat model though..what a shame)
So who's getting the bad end of the deal here? Not only Mr. Mason, but also The Citizens of Mt. Pleasant ourselves. Instead of getting a FREE park and boardwalk, we are going to get a SEVERAL MILLION dollar park that offers half the amenties the developer wanted to offer himself.
Note: Actual public park cost unknown. But after paying for the dirt per condemnation, legal expenses to pay for way condemnation took place, actually creating a formal plan for the park (wasn't this supposed to be done before notice of condemnation was served, according to a state law passed this past year??), site work, construction, marketing, security, upkeep, etc etc - it might be just a tiny bit more expensive than FREE.
Then we get back to this $6m vs. $2m issue. So, the town approved plans for a 24 unit condo w/ dock amenties and various access rights last summer. Isn't a formal, legally-binding appraisal supposed to take these things into account? What's this about the appraisal only being for 12 units? That in itself is a massive error - one has to figure the net profit from a single unit is pretty decent, and from 12 is pretty sizable chunk of change. Why wasn't this included in the appraisal? Something isn't right here.
As a resident, all I have to ask is this, what in the world is goign on here? Something doesn't smell right, and the stench is coming from the direction of Town Hall.
Posted by Kerry on November 2, 2007 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, the reason the Town is not interested in "all of Mason's property" is simply because they know they do not have the money.
Posted by acct on November 2, 2007 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Approval of the planning commission (an advisory panel only)is the first step in the process. It is my understanding that the planning committee and town council have not approved this project. There seems to be a lot of hot air here and not much substance.
Posted by palmetto1 on November 2, 2007 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Acct: I believe your understanding might be incorrect - at least according to articles published back in August.
"After the Shem Creek committee meeting and vote, the Council Planning and Development Committee voted to approve the annexation and zoning necessary for Mason and Smith to proceed with their project." Published 8/14
http://archives.postandcourier.com/archi...
"Without comment, council emerged from executive session and voted unanimously to enter into talks with Mark Mason and Phillip Smith to buy the land. Later, council voted to approve the annexation and zoning necessary for the developers to proceed with their project." Published 8/15
http://archives.postandcourier.com/archi...
Posted by Mayor on November 2, 2007 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"When Harry met Bankruptcy"
Posted by bigwhip on November 3, 2007 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Council had an opportunity to deal for this property about three years ago. Bustos and another councilmember, gone now, pushed to move on the property. I think council got cold feet due to monies needed to go to the rec dept. so nothing was done. With no leadership the idea folded. Council would have looked like heros then; now they are buffoons.