Town might condemn landMt. Pleasant may use power to obtain Shem Creek site By Prentiss Findlay (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
MOUNT PLEASANT — Town Council will exercise its power of eminent domain if its final offer to buy land on the northern side of Shem Creek is rejected. After an executive session Tuesday whose agenda items included Shem Creek legal and contractual matters, Councilman Joe Bustos made a motion to "authorize a final offer and, if not accepted, pursue final legal action as discussed." The motion passed. Council members referred questions to Town Attorney Allen Young, who said he could not yet confirm the specifics of the piece of property that council wants to buy because of the ongoing negotiations. "I've been authorized to make a final offer. I've also been authorized to file a condemnation proceeding," Young said. If the final offer is rejected, the courts will determine fair market value, he said. Council and Young have been negotiating with developers Mark Mason and Phillip Smith to buy 43 acres on the northern side of Shem Creek. Mason did not return a phone call to his office Tuesday seeking comment. After an Aug. 14 closed-door session, Council voted unanimously to negotiate to buy the land for public use from Mason and Smith, who want to build a marina and condominiums on the property. An executive session meeting Aug. 19 ended with no public word on the status of the negotiations. Mason has said condemnation is no advantage to the town because it would still pay fair market value plus legal fees. "If they want it that bad, we'll be able to agree on something. They really haven't come out to threaten that, but it wouldn't be much of a threat," he said when the negotiations began. Town Administrator Mac Burdette has said condemnation is a last resort. Town officials have yet to say exactly what they envision for the site, but they have suggested the land would be suitable for a park and marsh boardwalk. The park would be where the developer now plans condominiums at the site of the OK Tire store. Burdette said the Shem Creek project would be paid for through tax-increment financing. Mason and Smith have said they plan 24 condominiums and boat slips and a marsh and creekfront boardwalk with a floating fishing pier. Mason has said that appraisals of the property range from $7.9 million to $9.5 million and that he is asking for the appraised value of the land and design work done to date. He said he was ready to begin construction of the condos when the town expressed interest. Joan Pittman presented council with a petition signed by more than 700 people who are "adamantly opposed" to the developers' plan for the creek because it would clog and further pollute the creek, which is already thick with restaurants, shrimp boats and inns. The petition urges the town to vigorously try to buy the property. Proponents of the developers' plan argue that the area of Shem Creek just past Vickery's restaurant is an eyesore with its sunken boats and rickety docks. They say the development would restore that side of the creek and allow public access through marsh and creek boardwalks. Reach Prentiss Findlay at 937-5711 or pfindlay@postand courier.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 18 comment(s)
Posted by Mayor on October 10, 2007 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW. That's how we roll in MP. Do it our way or we'll do it our way. This will be a great lawsuit for the developers, I hope they bankrupt our town! What a bunch of losers!
Posted by Neponset on October 10, 2007 at 6:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I no longer live in Mt. P., but grew up using Shem Creek for my boating needs and occasionally return to frequent the restaurants there. I support the towns efforts to stop the development of the area in question. Since my family still owns a piece of property in Mt. P., I would have signed the petition, if asked.
Posted by mdtpace on October 10, 2007 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, mayor, that would be great. Develop it all, leave no piece unpaved or built upon, we'll have Myrtle Beach South in 5 years or less. If our local gov was worth a sh$t, none of this would have been necessary and development would have been more carefully planned. As is stands now, between all the condos and Centex homes, we have infrastructure problems that won't be solved in the next 20 years. Let's not turn Coleman into Hwy 17 by putting a house or condo on every sq inch of land.
Posted by skeeter on October 10, 2007 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since when are old boats and rickety docks any more of an eyesore than condos. Please...I've gotten to where I just don't care anymore. So sad.
Posted by bigwhip on October 10, 2007 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Long time coming.There is only one way to deal this situation knowing the current owners.
Posted by majorjohnson on October 10, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They aren't using eminent domain for a public purpose. They are using it to stop development. They could have done this at any time and cleaned that eyesore up if they really wanted a park or something out there. I thought we just changed eminent domain laws in this state to keep towns from taking peoples property. The condo builders were even going to build public access and boardwalks. Now the city is going to spend millions of dollars stopping jobs and preventing access and probably let it keep rotting.
Posted by DCartisan on October 10, 2007 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mount Pleasant's tax dollars hard at work buying rickety docks and marsh while squeezing us younger folks out because of grossly inflated housing prices.
Posted by besttm on October 10, 2007 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What a great way to spend between $7.9-$9.5 million tax payer dollars. This is a much better idea than installing new and repairing old infrastructure in the Town. Don't get me wrong, I prefer the Shem Creek of my youth, but you can't undo the development and changes over the past thirty years. And correct me if I'm wrong on this, but if the developer's were ready to begin construction (i.e., they had all necessary approvals and permits to begin construction) wouldn't that mean that the proposed development complied with all necessary zoning and comprehensive plans of either the Town of Mt. Pleasant or Charleston County?
Posted by summervillesc on October 10, 2007 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I do not live in MT Pleasant.I think the town should take the land and leave it like it is.
Posted by OverHere on October 10, 2007 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The government's ultimate control of the land is practically the basis of our English system of law. The town is well within its rights to do this. Courts historically have gone out of there way to put a "public purpose" behind almost all government decisions that are made. Creating a park is clearly a public purpose in any case.
Posted by greener1 on October 10, 2007 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes I agree, I think the government should STEAL this land from the owner. What's fair to the government is never fair to the owner, never!
I just hope yours will be on the block one day so you see how if feels. Do you morons realize that they can do this anytime anywhere?
Posted by Early on October 10, 2007 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And you wonder why you pay 9.75% sales tax in Mt. P
Posted by Kerry on October 10, 2007 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let the developers have the whole damn Creek...you cannot preserve something that has already been ruined.
Certainly whatever Mason and Smith are proposing to build will be an improvement over the blight that exist there now.
The Town has done nothing for all of these years, allowing Shem Creek to degenerate into a "battle of the bars". Why the sudden interest in doing anything to benefit the general public now? Maybe Ronnie Boals can start selling miniature parking lot signs as souvenirs so visitors can have a genuine reminder of their visit to Shem Creek.
Seriously, the Town Council of Mount Pleasant needs to hold their "executive sessions" over on Bird Key so the smell coming out of them will not be as noticeble to the residents. Of course, the birds on that island may decide to relocate.
Posted by majorjohnson on October 10, 2007 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The government's ultimate control of the land is practically the basis of our English system of law"
Um...what country is this person from? We were the first country in history to allow private ownership of property. In England the government owned all land and granted/revoked title to people at will. Ownership of land is a right under our constitution. Mt. Pleasant isn't taking this land because they need a park there, they are taking it because they want to stop a private owner of the land from building under the zoning laws they are compliant with.
Posted by Early on October 10, 2007 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about green money, is this project in the slot for this type of money? It would be nice to purchase the land, remove the rift-raft and docks and bring it back to it's natural beauty. Right now the area is just a good place to get a DUI
Posted by charleston on October 10, 2007 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cute. So others build up their property and then one of the last property owners decides to do the same thing -within their zoning constraints -and their land gets condemned so that the others can enjoy a passive park. How un-American. Why is the entire parcel being targeted? Why isn't this burden being shared? Thieves. The decision of the Supreme Court to enable this type of behavior is so wrong on so many levels and all of those in political power imploring the eminent domain strategy like this are shamefully aware.
Posted by Neponset on October 10, 2007 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the taking of this property is entirely different from the case that when to the high court. Here the taking would be for the good of the general public, in the other case, the taking was a public/private deal where they pushed out the original owners of the property and while it increased the tax base, there were profits for the private company involved. Kind of like Joe and the Beach Co. pushing folks out of some old neighborhood that is on choice waterfront property and building a high end gated community in its place.
Posted by Cid95 on October 10, 2007 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Having a park / public access at the mouth of Shem Creek would be a benefit to Mt P and her citizens. There is precious little park space in the twon in comparison to acres and acres of "neighborhoods" (read: mass produced suburbs).
The creation of a park should be tied into the deal though so they don't drop the ball after they acquire it.