November 18, 2022 email from Don Moniak to the Aiken Design Review Board.
Chairman Law,
At last night’s (11/17/22) public workshop, the Design Review Board (DRB or Board) requested information about the condition of Pascalis project properties officially owned by the City of Aiken’s Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), and paid for with public funds.
Following are three lines of information for the Board to consider. The Board is charged with determining whether any properties warrant a designation of “demolition by neglect,” meaning the owners have permitted structures or property to:
“fall into a serious state of disrepair or to remain in a serious state of disrepair so as to result in the deterioration of any exterior architectural feature which would, in the judgment of the Commission, produce a detrimental effect upon the character of the structure or property, or, if the structure or property is in an Historic District, upon the district.”
1. The AMDC chose to avoid last night’s public meeting, and its absence was an act of neglect. The commission is established by city ordinance, funded by the City of Aiken, and is mandated to work on behalf of the citizens of Aiken, who remain at the top of the city’s organizational chart.
The failure of a single commissioner to attend was inexcusable, and only served to strengthen the public perception that demolition of its half of the block remains the commission’s only goal.
2. The terminated Purchase and Sale Agreement between the AMDC and RPM Development Partners, which required the AMDC to:
“manage and operate the Property in accordance with past practices and maintain the Improvements and the tangible Personal Property in substantially its current condition and repair, ordinary wear and tear excepted, to be delivered in a broom clean condition at Closing.”
This PSA should provide one benchmark for evaluating how well the property owner, who was absent from last night’s proceedings, has maintained its properties. Unless water damage from roof leaks are considered “ordinary wear and tear” then the AMDC failed to meet even this most basic contractual obligation.
The Hotel Aiken is not the only AMDC property with a leaking roof. The CC Johnson Drug Store had problems with leaks when the Shah family owned it, and a chimney remains covered with a mat held down by cinder blocks. What is the purpose of this low-tech arrangement?
Beyond Bijou in the Beckman Building at 106 Laurens St, SW, reported another roof leak on its Facebook page on September 2nd.
As an aside, this PSA is no longer publicly available. The City of Aiken removed it from its document repository within 24 hours of the publication of Downtown Aiken Half Price Sale on November 10, 2022.
2. On November 8, 2022 the AMDC published a page of photographs showing the existing conditions of a few of its properties, but almost primarily the Hotel Aiken.
Unfortunately, the AMDC purchased its properties in an “as-is” condition and did not have them appraised or inspected. So the commission has no baseline for what the conditions were in the Beckman Building at 106 Laurens Street, SW, Taj Aiken Restaurant, and the McGhee Building when it wrote that:
“From every angle, the area of Downtown that makes up the Project Pascalis footprint is in need of a refresh. This highly visible block of the central business district has fallen into disrepair, as the former owner’s plan to redevelop the Hotel Aiken and adjacent property has stalled.”
However, the photographs do provide a baseline of the conditions the AMDC willingly accepted when it spent $9.5 million of public funds on the seven properties. The Board could recruit volunteer, independent photographers to replicate these photos to see where conditions have worsened under the minimalist management approach of the AMDC, where they have remained the same, and where there might be an improvement.
One example of how disrepair has remained in place is shown by a comparison of this photograph published on November 8th, that shows a boarded up window on the Laurens Street side of the Hotel Aiken.
And here is a similar view taken on November 17, 2022, with the same boarded window. The only differences are there are more leaves remaining on the Ginkgo tree this year, and the presence of the Voluntary Cleanup Contract sign.
Another November 8th photograph illustrated a tree growing out of a second floor window of the Beckman Building. As reported in “A Tree Disappears in Aiken,” the AMDC neglected for nine months to remedy this highly visible situation it cited as an example of disrepair.
The Board should obtain the original photos from the AMDC and work to replicate some of them as part of its information gathering and analysis process—if one actually exists. After all, Chairman Law collaborated with the Pascalis project manager to gather information to support the demolition application.
As seen in this screenshot of Capstone Service’s February, 2022, work invoice, that collaboration included planning drone pictures of the Hotel that were shown at the Board’s Feburary 1, 2022 workshop. These photos could also be replicated to determine the degree of neglect this year.
If the Chairman of the Design Review Board could work with the City’s Municipal Development Commission and Planning Deparment earlier this year to help build a case for demolition, then the Board as a whole should be willing to work with citizens–who fund the existence of the commission– to determine to what degree the Pascalis properties have been neglected to the detriment of downtown Aiken. It can then act in accordance with Section 5.1.8 of the municipal code, Ordinance 04142003A, which requires corrective actions and penalties for violations “of any provisions of this Chapter.”
Thank You,
Donald Moniak
Footnote:
The Aiken Chronicles is encouraging readers interested in the upkeep of the publicly owned Pascalis properties to submit suggestions on how the Design Review Board should proceed to eurekascresearch@gmail.com. This includes any pertinent information that should be gathered, and what non-neglect should look like.
The suggestions will be compiled and published; and presented to the Design Review Board. Anonymity is allowed.
I admire and respect the articles you have published in the past few months. Your research has been especially interesting and often relevant. Mr Moniak.
I note that your recent article focuses primarily on the actions of the AMDC rather than the DRB. As someone who has lived in Aiken for nearly 20 years.
I I still consider myself a newcomer to the seemingly simple, but actually complex history of this small Southern town that has survived and often prospered multiple rather dramatic influxes of people-the railroad, the health seekers and sanitariums, the winter colony, the SRS, and most recently, retirees from throughout the country, and soon to come, military and contractors to the expansion in Augusta.
All of us bring our assumptions and cultural values of what we believe is best for Aiken. I believe that our (relative “newcomers”) thoughts and opinions can be valuable to decisions made for Aiken’s identity and prosperity. I also believe that some of our elected and appointed leaders made mistakes.
And here I speak primarily about the words intended for the DRB. Too many of us who live in Aiken are condemning members of the Board with ad hominem and non sequitur attacks. We use diction that compares our fellow citizens, human beings with partners and children and mothers and fathers, to animals and rodents. An ugly rage has infected some of us.
I recognize the frustration and desperate actions to stop the Pascalis project. It seems to have worked. It is stopped.
It often appears, however, that the attacks continue.
I propose that we take this hiatus to calm ourselves, to consider rationally how to move forward, to stop the personal attacks and reach out, without prejudice, to get to know those persons, especially those on the DRB, with the welcome and hospitality offered to us when we moved here, if it be 50 years or six months ago.
I can attest to the integrity of one member of the DRB.
I first met Mr. Law through a friend when I moved here 20 years ago. I casually mentioned that my family wanted to bring more light into our tree-shaded home. He knew our 1950s house and sketched some ideas for us. Then he helped guide us through the process. Free.
Often when I have followed other minor and major reconstructions and renovations in the SRS, I find him volunteering his architectural skills behind the scene, free. The African-American Center is one. He is a man of strong faith who has often helped churches stabilize or build their churches. I have seen him leaving his Thanksgiving dinner to help my family anchor our under-repair roof when a strong wind was blowing pieces of it away. I have seen him do this so many times for so many different people. His integrity is absolute.
I know that other members of our city too have this strong sense of integrity. Perhaps we could look for the individuals who share our concerns and find common ground. Of course, some are “following the money”, countless novels, poems, and dramas have featured these type of characters for thousands of years. But let us not condemn the group because of them.
I hope I have offered reasonable comments as I too look for a way forward to ensuring the kind and generous welcome I was given, a kindness and tact I find too often missing in these comments.
J. Hampton. If you will take the time to read Mr. Moniak’s reports on the Aiken Chronicles, you will find that — insomuch as every one of them presents a factual, account of a story that has been meticulously documented with information obtained through FOIA and other public records — virtually all of his research is relevant.
If you will further take the time to read the complaint https://aikenchronicles.com/2022/07/05/project-pascalis-lawsuit-alleges-an-abundance-of-violations-of-state-and-local-law/ brought by nine plaintiffs, “including the Historic Aiken Foundation, Green Boundary Foundation and former City Councilperson Dick Dewar…. against two dozen City of Aiken officials and a pair of development companies collaborating with the city to demolish and reconstruct a substantial portion of historic, downtown” you will find yet more documentation of this story, that, in Mr. Moniak’s words, “prominently features the DRB among the many allegations of legal misconduct.
In his report on the lawsuit, Mr. Moniak wrote, “Pages 36 to 90 contain the general factual allegations and provide welcome summertime nonfiction for a majority of Aiken area residents who object to Project Pascalis. Like a good true white collar crime story, the allegations detail sham proceedings, citizens locked out of a distorted and confusing public process, conflict of interest violations from the Mayor to the City Attorney, and city boards that regulate the public while serving the developers they are charged with monitoring.”
Applying the characterization of “desperate actions” to the countless hours and expenses incurred by countless ordinary citizens engaging legal and lawful processes day after day after day over the past 9 months to fight this illegitimate $100 million dollar Goliath of a project may seem unfair to some, but it is your right to say so.
Well said Mr Hampton. Now that we have made out points, I agree that we could temper ourselves, but remain strong in proceeding the right way.
We must continue the fight until we get our beautiful town back and respect from the city’s elected, which is one of the reasons there was so much emotion. Respect has to go both ways.
Thank you for following the money. Works every time.
The Genesis of our current downtown morass is the “old buddy” relationships among the City Council, the AMDC and the DRB. This cabal of city “leaders” knew their end game from the start: to ramrod through a development plan that was going to be a financial windfall for Ray Massey and his partners. There was never any intention of public involvement in Aiken’s rehab. The sole focus was to financially enrich a small number of people at the public’s expense.
Thinking that they could take half of Newberry St., ruin the symmetry of our urban plan and build apartments for which no justification was ever given.
The fact that Massey hurried to acquire 3 Alley properties only highlights the breadth of the money grab that was planned under Pascalis.
The AMDC needs to be abolished and the 9 properties that we paid $9.5 million for should be put in escrow to prevent another run at profiteering by any of the same people. The City Council needs,, post AMDC, to form a group of interested citizens to commence a study of the options available and to Aiken – ones that reflect our history and our pride.
Lastly, after failure to perform on both the City Hospital and the Pascalas projects, any future consideration for future City building projects should exclude Massey and his partners from participation.
Mr. Cornelius —
Having studied the “value” of the seven properties purchased by AMDC (with City Council members’ unanimous approval), I can tell you that Aiken taxpayers will be extremely fortunate if those properties can be sold for one-half of what was paid for them.
See: https://aikenchronicles.com/?s=concerned+citizen
And: https://aikenchronicles.com/?s=elmerpywacket
Aiken city government has become positively dysfunctional. The “leadership” has hunkered down in their bunkers (including unlawful “executive sessions”). Arrogance, ignorance, mendacity and malfeasance are the current watchwords. Those “leaders” have created a debacle, and they are now acting like cornered rats when confronted with the enormity of the tragedy for which they are responsible.
Thanks again to Mr. Moniak and “The Aiken Chronicles” for being the voice which Aiken city officials wish would be silent.
Please tell me who owns what property? Is the City Council now responsible for the ownership of all properties…very confusing…
Seems to me that “Our City Council” has been spending our tax payers money freely and with very poor judgement and there has been so much secrecy and behind the scenes transactions that should be transparent to all citizens. City Council and the other commissions became greedy and when they wanted Newberry Street that was the the downfall of this entire project. Had they not wanted Newberry Street this whole project would have likely gone through and we would have had a very poorly developed downtown. Seems to me that the bottom line is the City Council is responsible for all this…am I wrong?
Peggy Iwert.
The deed for the seven properties, including the Hotel Aiken, lists City of Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC). But the AMDC purchased the properties using a $9.5 grant from the city, and this money was obtained when the city borrowed it via a municipal bond issuance and ordinance. So in reality, the AMDC paid $0 of its own money for the properties, and the citizens of Aiken, who are the top of the organizational chart, paid $9.5 million.
So you are right that City Council is ultimately responsible, as are the citizens of Aiken. City Council encouraged this process, funded it, approved it at every step, but now seems content to allow the AMDC to keep all the property after the commission failed twice in one year’s time to reach an agreement with its “preferred” developer.
City Council is even considering paying off the $9.5 million loan. If they do so without conditions for the future of the property, the AMDC will be in business, able to sell the properties and bank the proceeds in its Security Federal Bank checking account.
It’s perplexing isn’t it! The elephant is in the room … it’s bleeding from abuse. If this is how they manage a city I would hate to be their family member. The AMDC needs to be abolished – demolished – right?! DRB passively sat during the meeting on their cell phones – in an awkward situation like “hmmm I’m going to disappear in front of everyone” – we know nothing – we see nothing and we hear NOTHING including several of the plaintiffs that spoke.
What an embarrassing meeting. They agreed to meet because the citizens requested to be HEARD.
The DRB is All HAT no Cattle.
I do get confused about this situation. I understand the city bought the property as a neglected property in poor condition. I do not recall that there was any condition of sale requiring the city to fix up the property. Rather, the expectation (and hope) is that the city would assess the situation to determine If restoration, rebuilding, or demolition, etc. Is appropriate. I do believe that restoration is a valid alternative but it is just that – an alternative. An alternative that needs to be assessed not as a forgone conclusion but rather within the context of all other alternatives.
Stephen Pearcy. The situation is more complicated than that, but overall the city did not purchase neglected properties in poor condition. That is the public relations spin we have been offered for more than a year, but it is largely untrue, unless one considers an buildings with active business like Newberry Hall or Warneke Cleaner’s to be neglected and in poor condition. The focus on the hotel, in which the Aiken Standard was complicit, overshadowed the reality that this project involved displacing nine existing businesses to address the future of two controversial structures, the Hotel Aiken and the Holley House motel.
The City funded the purchase of seven properties. The AMDC has no credit to speak of and sought to use the good faith and credit of the City to raise funds for property acquisition.
The AMDC purchased seven properties, only one of which could be considered in a state of neglect—-and that “neglect” was very recent, if it existed at all. The Hotel Aiken stopped operating in 2018 to perform a major renovation. That renovation stalled to a snail’s pace in 2020 and then stopped.
Five of the other properties involved only had one vacancy at the time, and that appears to have been the owner’s choice. None of the other properties were considered to be neglected or in poor condition. This was primarily a matter of reengineering downtown, not addressing blight or neglect.
Indeed, the project was and is more complex than the hotel but 90% of the comments and press seem to be focused on the hotel. It is (was?) the centerpiece. And much of the discussion seems be be centered on why the hotel continues to deteriorate under the premise that it is to be restored. That premise has not yet been proven to be the most cost-effective, lowest risk, most economically feasible alternative. Certainly an improvement over the AMDC fiasco but not the only alternative.
The AMDC is the first area of Blight downtown that needs addressed. The City Council according to the Mayor can vote to disband them and that needs to happen but instead they are having yet another double secret meeting (executive session) on Monday. Astounding. How can we or the DRB hold them accountable for this sizable taxpayer purchase if they won’t come out of their basements? The City Council should have Monday’s meeting in the sunshine and citizens should be able to give their comments on the record. The Design Review board itself is a joke they voted to demolish this and associated shops earlier this year. Fox/Henhouse.
The City Council is the next item under Aiken Citizens on the food chain according to the chart you recently presented. This project has already been compartmentalized way too much ………time to hold City Council responsible for this very large investment.
Abolish the AMDC
Appoint ALL new members on the DRB (Historic Preservation)
Sell the Properties (and preferably not half price to the city attorney’s law partner to build a parking garage and conference center in it’s place )
It’s sad we have to make this list huh?
Mr. Cornelius —
Having studied the “value” of the seven properties purchased by AMDC (with encouragement, and approval, and provision of $9.5 million by City Council) I can tell you that Aiken taxpayers will be extremely fortunate if those properties can be sold for one-half of what was paid for them.
See: https://aikenchronicles.com/?s=concerned+citizen
And: https://aikenchronicles.com/?s=elmerpywacket