The $9.6 Million AMDC “Land Bank,” One Year Later

Part 1: The Aiken Standard Chooses a Path. 

by Don Moniak

November 4, 2022

One year ago yesterday, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) announced its intention to “acquire significant property in the downtown area,” and a planned vote on the proposed purchase during its November 9, 2021 meeting. The announcement came less than three months after Aiken City Council had approved a $10 million municipal bond issuance in support of the AMDC purchasing properties in the “Parkway District,” an arrangement City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh described at the time as a “land bank.” 

The AMDC did not identify the properties in its news release, leaving those details to the Aiken Standard by providing the paper with advance copies of meeting agenda materials; most notably the Purchase and Sale agreements.  On the same day as the AMDC announcement, Standard reporter Colin Demarest described the properties to be purchased for $9.5 million as: 

the languished Hotel Aiken and neighboring motel, businesses on Richland Avenue, the former Playoffs Sports Bar, Warneke Cleaners, Newberry Hall and three shops on Laurens Street.” 

The first story of the $9.6 million AMDC purchase of the Pacalis project properties.

The Standard did identify by name the three existing shops on Laurens Street, and the four businesses operating on Richland Avenue–of which only the Taj Aiken Restaurant remains today. But not until July 2022, in an article examined in “The Project Pascalis Evictees,” did the paper report again on the nine businesses being forced by their local city government to close or relocate.

Demarest did manage to report, deeper within the article:

The Aiken Chamber of Commerce intervened in May, documents show, and salvaged contracts critical to the redevelopment effort.” 

That single sentence was the first time the Aiken Standard mentioned the involvement of the Aiken Chamber of Commerce. It was also the last time the Chamber’s role was mentioned for more than eight months. The paper has never provided details of the Chamber’s deep involvement in salvaging the land deal in May, 2021 (1); a move that bailed out the first Pascalis project developer Weldon Wyatt. 

Two days after his first story Demarest quoted J. David Jameson, not as an AMDC Commissioner who was instrumental in the furtive May 2021, dealmaking, but as the Chamber of Commerce President. This pattern continued with a December 3, 2021 article announcing the selection of RPM Development Partners, LLC as the AMDC’s “preferred developer” for its $100 million plus demolition and redevelopment effort originally code-named Project Pascalis in March 2021. 

Whether the self-censorship was related to Aiken Standard publisher Rhonda Overbey’s role as a Chamber board member is unknown. As reported in “The Influencer’s Meetings,” Overbey was also one of 113 people on an “influencers” list who were invited to private, invitation-only meetings with the second Pascalis project developer in early January, 2022. 

What is known is the the November 4th announcement was also accompanied by an op-ed by the Standard’s editorial board, titled “Downtown Aiken Entering the Age of Enlightment.” The board was all in for Project Pascalis, before any significant details were known: 

This is no joke and there isn’t a punchline; we think it’s going to happen. And happen huge. The marketing buzz words seem to be bold action. We like it…It’s time for triumph.” 

This editorial praising the project ran the same day the story broke.

Project Pascalis was not the first major project during which the Aiken Standard’s news coverage appeared distorted by its editorial position. The city’s hospitality tax and Aiken School District bond referendums enjoyed the same journalistic approach. But the Pascalis coverage lowered the bar for minimizing scrutiny of a megaproject involving tens of millions of dollars of public funds.

For example, not until August, 2022, did the Aiken Standard file a Freedom of Information Act request to the City of Aiken for Pascalis related records. And, during a public Zoom meeting in late June, 2022, the lack of investigative zeal was reflected when Standard staffers repeatedly employed the phrase “the City says,” while avoiding the phrase “We asked the City.” 

____________________

FOOTNOTE

(1) As reported in “The AECOM Plan:”

“The first Pascalis project collapsed in early May (2021) when Weldon Wyatt withdrew from the deal. As part of the negotiations to salvage the deal, Mayor Osbon met with Weldon Wyatt and Greenville based developer Andy Cajka, President of Greenville, SC based Southern Hospitality Group. A memorandum from Tim O’Briant to AMDC members Jameson, Chris Verenes, and Chairman Keith Wood described the meeting: 

The Mayor and Weldon met with Andy on Monday, I was out of town, apparently shg hotels will possibly deliver a LOI (letter of intent) regarding the hotel this week. The mayor agreed the meeting went well and Andy was engaged in making a deal that would be privately funded based on the public dollars and incentives driving the project. Mayor indicates he deferred question about Friday negotiations and City’s position on deal points citing my absence and his lack of information on the subject.

A day later O’Briant and AMDC Treasurer and Chamber of Commerce President David Jameson had lunch with Weldon Wyatt, his investment and development partner Thomas “Chip” Goforth, and GAC Management Services employee Ryan Bland, who two weeks earlier had still held the position of City of Aiken Planning Director. O’Briant described that meeting as follows: 

David Jameson and I went to lunch with Weldon, Ryan, and Chip. Weldon continues to promote the benefits of 100 percent public funding of the entire project, but now says he doesnt’ intend to participate in the cost or the proceeds—just wants a fee/commission for the project to be successful. This despite bringing in a potential private partner with money to spend just yesterday. He is somewhat cagey and defensive and says he believes I have conveyed messages not representative of the City’s position. Indicates he believes there is some possibility the city council would accept the deal that I rejected Friday. Indicates Lessie (Price) is setting up the Thursday meeting to get everyone in one room to verify my position does not reflect that of leadership.

After that point the known paper trail ends, and the outcome of any meeting set up by Council member Lessie Price is unknown. What is known is:

  • On May 10, 2021, Aiken City Council met in closed door Executive Session for nearly two hours to discuss a range of topics, including “a possible purchase of real estate” and “a possible contractual arrangement with a real estate developer.” The outcome of that meeting was not summarized during the subsequent public session. 
  • On May 14, 2021 the Aiken Chamber of Commerce took assignment of the purchase and sale contract for the Shah’s suite of properties; and then on June 3rd took assignment, of the Anderson (Newberry Hall) contract. In all, the Chamber reimbursed Wyatt’s firms $135,000 of otherwise nonrefundable earnest money managed by City Attorney Gary Smith’s law firm. From that point, the AMDC secretly referred to the properties as “AMDC controlled.” 
  • In August 2021 Aiken City Council approved a $10 million bond issuance in support of AMDC property acquisitions in the “Parkway District,” with the AECOM Plan’s reference to “fragmented property ownership” a key justification in the supporting bond documents. 
  • AMDC Chairman Keith Wood, whose letter to City Council urging the bond passage included citations from the AECOM plan, also wrote in a July 26, 2022 letter to the Historic Aiken Foundation: “The AMDC first pursued the purchase of the property in question and those adjacent to it at the behest of Aiken City Council.” 

There is no record of Aiken City Council asking the AMDC to purchase the Pascalis project properties. Any such request made in closed-door, Executive Session would constitute a serious violation of Open Meetings law, which dictate that no votes are to be taken in Executive Session. 

When questioned about the origin of this unsubstantiated statement, neither Chairman Wood nor Tim O’Briant have offered any reply.”

5 thoughts on “The $9.6 Million AMDC “Land Bank,” One Year Later”

  1. Mr. Moniak provides another revealing trip down memory lane, while exposing a few of the many instances of furtive misbehavior — including malevolence, mendacity and maleficence — that have been exhibited by most of the principal figures powering the Project Pascalis debacle. The triumvirate of the “Aiken Standard,” the Aiken Chamber of Commerce, and Aiken city government officials is the embodiment of an unholy alliance — with one of their weapons being a nonchalant expenditure of citizens’ tax remittances.

    1. On at least four separate occasions over the past year I have asked the Aiken Standard, in writing, to run a circa 1920 photograph of the Aiken Hotel which shows it as a brick structure with NO evidence of stucco. I feel, strongly, this could have shifted the conversation to not what the hotel is now to what it was. Each time the executive editor told me that were getting an article together and it might be appropriate to enter it at that time. Frustratingly, nothing has ever happened. I consider the stucco box at the corner of Laurens and Richland to be, at best, a tarnished element embraced by those who wish to save it. Under these circumstances I consider the “Historic Label” to be fictitious.

      1. Is this the photo you’re referring to? https://aikenchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/B3DA78F8-66E2-446D-94B8-8A2FAF02D0A3.jpeg

        I have wondered how much of the original facade might still exist under the “ambitious remodeling” of 1929 and have wondered, too, what possessed them to undertake this rebuilding of the hotel, as the project was termed in 1929. Of course, this was the era when fireproofing was a huge concern, and I know that this was an integral part of the rebuild, as the Henderson Hotel, which was being built that same year, was being billed as fireproof. But why the radical change to the facade? It may be that this was seen as a means to “modernize” Hotel Aiken in some fashion. Or it may be that the exterior stucco intended to add a layer of fireproofing, as asbestos was commonly used in stucco during this period. Regardless, I have always been in favor of restoring it to the original brick, if such a thing is possible, as it was no doubt made of brick dug from local clays and fired with local woods, most likely longleaf pine.

      2. Philip Winsor. While the effort to save the hotel is substantial, the weight of the opposition directed against Project Pascalis was addressed much more against the totality of the project, and much less to save the hotel. If the city had moved to only address the Hotel property, instead of seeking to demolish nearly half the block and force out existing businesses, the situation would be very different today.

        The application for historic status made in March 2018 is available at https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=399918&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF.

        The City Council was very much in favor of providing this status when the renovation effort was in its early stages. It was only when that effort stalled to a slow crawl two years later that more government intervention was proposed.

        Now, the AMDC has been intervening for two years (it began in secret in September 2020) and has accomplished no more than the previous owner did in nearly the same time frame, and they have gone through two developers and two different schemes.

  2. The real enlightenment would turn out to be your August 2022 The Pascalis Attorneys document which exposed the ugly underbelly of this now failed project. The secrecy, the deception and the complete disregard for the public and the rules have landed the AMDC and this City Council in a quite a spot now. Thank you for continuing to expose this. Why they wouldn’t be rushing to abolish the embattled AMDC at this point remains a mystery.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *