South Carolina continues to make improvements in education, with the predominant publicized change being the increase in the minimum starting salaries of teachers, which is intended, in part, to encourage more people to consider education as their profession. While this is a necessary first step, there is much more that needs to be done.
So much of a person’s life revolves around their level of education – whether this is K-12, college, trade schools, etc. This is not to say that one cannot have a healthy, successful life without a certain level of education, but one’s education is a big factor in determining the opportunities one will have or not have to earn a living.
Unfortunately, many either don’t understand this at a relatively early age, or they don’t have a family or even a community to encourage young children to work hard to develop the skills necessary to achieve certain educational goals.
Simply put, many children are just not in an environment that allows them to be sufficiently educated. Add to this some of the poorest-performing school districts with less than adequate educators, and we continue to not achieve our goals of adequately educating many of our population.
None of this is a secret. We all know it. We just don’t spend much time thinking about it. The question is, why are we not doing more to improve the situation? Most of us have busy lives. Most of us have expenses we are dealing with – mortgages, car payments, groceries, savings, etc. Most of us are working hard to give our own children the best chance for success. So, what is our responsibility, if any, to help others, particularly school-age children, to achieve their educational goals — whether they or their parents recognize the need to achieve such goals or not?
When doing a search online for “How To Fix US Education” or some similar description, there are an almost endless number of sites addressing various educational concerns expressed by Ph.Ds., M.Eds., educational institutions, etc. Some concerns were very obvious as they are what we hear being discussed in South Carolina at school board meetings, around election times, and in the media from time to time. However, some articles made me pause for a minute and think about whether these really were problems that needed to be addressed and, if so, how best to address them. The ideas on what needed to be fixed (for K-12 as there were a number of pieces related more towards education beyond high school) in no particular order included such things as:
• The method of education we have used for more than 100 years no longer works, and we need to change what we are doing.
• Standardized testing does not work and needs to be replaced.
• Parents need to be more involved with their child’s education.
• People living in poor conditions do not receive the same level of education as those living in wealthier areas.
• Poorer school districts do not have adequate facilities.
• Teacher pay is far below what is necessary to attract and retain good educators.
• Many administrations do not adequately support their teachers and staff.
• A teacher’s role should be more of a guide to help students to embrace “self-directed learning” such as hands on learning in lieu of teaching in a formal classroom.
• Hybrid learning is essential.
• End segregation in school systems based upon wealth.
• Have “behavioral interventions” in lieu of zero-tolerance rules.
• Significantly reduce the size of classrooms.
• Provide school choice for all students.
• Eliminate math beyond basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
• Provide mental health programs and counseling.
• Eliminate homework.
It would obviously take volumes to address even a few of these topics. And the solutions to those issues believed to be valid would have to be provided by someone far smarter than me. However, I do want to focus on several of these concerns, in no order of priority, that I believe will help us in South Carolina continue to head in the right direction.
1. One issue is the condition and types of facilities available in the poorer school districts. I believe that the State, and not just that particular school district, should upgrade facilities to meet a minimum standard for the State. There needs to be much discussion on what we expect those minimum conditions to be. We should consider keeping some level of the State Income Tax, presently around 6%, to help get those facilities to where they need to be in all school districts. Taxpayers already get a huge break on Federal taxes, where the government allows a couple filing jointly to receive a $31,500 deduction without itemizing, even though average charitable giving for those earning under $100K per year is less than $3000.
2. Teachers should receive adequate pay — first-year minimums and pay raises based upon the teacher’s performance. Pay for working in the poorest of school districts should be increased to whatever it takes to incentivize teachers to work in these areas. The idea is that we must get very good teachers in those areas.
3. Grades should be eliminated. No, not scores on papers and exams, but grade levels as we now have them. When a student is good in some subjects and struggles with others in lower grades, they are frequently just moved up to the next grade level with their classmates. For example, a third grader could meet the 3rd grade requirements in all subjects except maybe math. At the end of the school year, that child is promoted to 4th grade — in all subjects. Now they are in 4th-grade math, whereas they might only be on a 2nd-grade math level, which only gets them further and further behind. Changing to such a process where you are not always promoted from one grade to the next would be somewhat difficult for the child until it becomes more of the norm. In the example used with math, maybe the courses are changed to be named Basic Math 1, Basic Math 2, Algebra 1, Algebra 2, etc., and not associated with a specific grade level. Similar naming could be used for all subjects.
4. Following up on the topic of grades and grade levels, more schools should have after-school programs to support students who are behind. This would entail additional expenses for snacks, teachers, and transportation. It might only be a 90-minute program. And maybe the program would still allow the student to participate in after-school sports or other activities prior to the 90-minute program. In either case, the objective is to help a student struggling in one or more classes
5. My last suggestion, and the one I feel is the most unfortunate, is where the school needs to assist parents in understanding their role in supporting their child. I know most schools have regular parent/teacher conferences, especially when a child is performing poorly. There is no way every single parent is going to accept responsibility that the child does their homework, gets proper rest, studies for exams and otherwise keeps up with their classwork, but maybe these conferences need to be held more frequently, depending upon how the student is performing.
Education is so important for our children and our society. We cannot expect every child to finish K-12 school, but we have to give them the best chance possible to be successful. Education impacts on how most of them will live out their adult lives. This year, South Carolina had 86.7% of students graduating on time, but only 75.1% of them were college or career-ready. Superintendent Ellen Weaver stated, “We have to make sure that our diplomas are worth more than the piece of paper that they’re written on”.
I know we can do better than that, but it is going to require significant changes in our efforts and commitments to all children — not only from our citizens but our leaders as well. There are so many issues out there, but educating our youth is probably the best chance we have to improve their lives and our Country.
Dan Reider is a Mechanical Engineer who has designed schools for over 40 years in South Carolina.
(Editor’s Note: The following letter was submitted to the City of Aiken Planning Commission on January 13, 2026. It pertains to the proposed 172-home subdivision (Figures 1 and 2) along Toolebeck Road named Toolebeck Commons. An application for city sewer service was withdrawn (Figure 3) the day of its Planning Commission hearing on Tuesday, January 13, 2026. For further information see The Ten Foot Wide Strip of City Land and Satan’s Matchstick.)
Figure 1. Area around the proposed Toolebeck Commons subdivision (approximate outline in red). It is bounded by Toolebeck Road on the South and Woodward Road on the North. The Southeastern boundary abuts a 5.5-acre Dominion Energy electrical substation. Figure 2: Site plan for Toolebeck Commons submitted to City of Aiken for sewer services request.
Figure 3. Attendees of the January 13th Aiken City Planning Commission were greeted with this late notice that the application had been withdrawn for that meeting. The future of the application is presently unknown.
Toolebeck Road Comments Date: 1/13/2026
To: The Members of the City of Aiken Planning Commission, Marya Moultrie
From: H. B. Gianos, Montmorenci Farms, LLC
Re: Written comments to be added to the Planning Department report and legal record regarding the Toolebeck Road utility service application for sewer capacity outside the City Limits.
Well folks, here we are again. The Toolebeck Road application from Crowell and Company out of Georgia (aka Keystone Builders) is back in front of the City Planning Commission asking for a new discretionary sewer approval for a high density, high traffic (over 300 trips a day) small lot subdivision outside of the City Limits that has now grown to 172 homes. It was 156 homes on 66.5 acres in August 2025 when it was turned down by this Planning Commission, but the developer has since contracted for another 6 acres and are now proposing a larger 172 lot project on 72.5 acres. So, the impacts on the neighborhood’s roads, the area’s character, and the community’s available services have actually gone up, while their non-conformity with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area remains a screaming red flag.
So why is the developer back in City Hall, and not at the County Planning Department with a septic based site plan with about 1/3 the density proposed here, after 1) the City Planning Commission’s denial on August 12th, 2025 of the motion to approve an Annexation, Change of Zone to PR, and Concept Plan Approval of the smaller 156 Lot Subdivision Site Plan, 2) the Aiken City Council de-annexing contiguity to the project parcel via its ten foot strip in a 7-0 vote in the Fall of 2025 and thereafter distancing themselves from the proposed development and, 3) the City subsequently declaring the applicant’s former August 2020 sewer service resolution has expired?
The answer to these questions is very simple. You can’t build high density, high profit residential subdivisions in this area of the County without getting access to the City of Aiken’s Sewer System. And in this particular case, the access to the City’s sewer system is a completely discretionary vote on the part of the City of Aiken. Getting that discretionary sewer approval is this developer’s magic lottery ticket that turns this industrially cited land into supercharged, exponentially more valuable high density housing land.
This discretionary sewer service application has unfortunately been accompanied by a highly flawed, biased, and eye brow raising narrative from our own Planning Department that whitewashes the history of this project, and fails to disclose the material facts and impacts on which to fairly base the Commission’s review. The departmental memorandum and narrative contained in the Planning Commission Agenda of January 13th, 2026, is required to serve as a complete and accurate picture for the Planning Commission to review, analyze and vote on.
Their report couldn’t be farther from that standard, or the truth. Instead, it is a crystal clear indictment of the Director’s and Assistant Director’s own biases, admitted violation of City Policy, failure to disclose material facts the absence of which can mislead and misinform the Planning Commission Members, and a complete contradiction of the recent actions of the City Planning Commission, City Council, and City Manager’s Office to negate this high impact, nonconforming proposal.
Here is a list of material defects, misleading statements and critical non-disclosures that appear in the Planning Department report distributed to the Commission.
Material Non-Disclosures:
A) No mention that on August 12th, 2025, the City of Aiken Planning Commission turned down this application for an Annexation, Zone Change to PR, and a Conceptual Site Plan approval of 156 homes. The proposal currently in front of the Commission is for an even larger project of 172 homes.
B) No mention that subsequent to the Planning Commission’s denial, the Aiken City Council voted 7-0 to de-annex the ten foot strip of City owned property that created contiguity with the applicant’s property. Substantive policy comments were made that evening by several Council members about not letting growth spoil the eastern part of the City and concentrating the City’s limited utility resources in high priority projects in the western and northern parts of the City. Judging from this report, the policy statements endorsed by the City Council are falling on deaf ears in the Planning Department.
C) No mention that the City of Aiken has declared the August 2020 Utility Services Resolution granting sewer access (to only one of the tax lot parcels submitted as part of this application) to be expired, and as such, null and void.
D) No mention that the applicant has openly and publicly threatened litigation against the City to refute the expiration of the August 2020 Utility Services Resolution and has engaged litigation counsel. So the question immediately arises as to who is advising the City and the Planning Department on even accepting an application for sewer service while under the threat of litigation? Why have they not asked the applicant for a stipulation waiving suit against the City as a condition of hearing the new application? Otherwise, this appears to be a clear cut case of developer bullying and intimidation to “force” through a completely discretionary approval using threats.
E) That the Planning Department is aware that the City has only 410,000 gpd (gallons per day) of remaining capacity at the County Sewer Treatment Plant, but already has approximately 500,000 gpd of claims against that remaining capacity. On paper, Aiken is not in a position to offer sewer at the present time. The City will not receive additional capacity until the County plant expansion is completed in 2027. The City’s future capacity increase has been reduced by the County to 1.5 million gpd from the 1.5 million gpd requested by the City. Allocating scarce sewer capacity to only the high priority projects within the City Limits will be the most discussed planning topic for the next several years.
F) There are no unit mix calculations in the report showing how many bedrooms are in each home. Therefore, there are no sewer capacity reservation calculations presented for the project. A reasonable number based on 172 units of varying size would be 55,000 gpd.
Therefore, what is the status of the payment of the City’s sewer capacity reservation fee at the current rate of $10.89 gpd (estimated at $598,950) which fee appears to be payable by a non-City project at the time of requesting said capacity based on comments made by Thomas Parrot P. E. at last night’s, January 12, 2025, City Counsel Work Session.
Withholding Material Information and Providing False Context:
A) There is no mention of the industrial setting of the proposed project or its adjacency to the largest Dominion Energy substation in town and the Horse Creek Academy Charter School that has 1308 students plus faculty, staff and deliveries. The school already causes long traffic lines twice a day in front of these parcels that materially impede the safe flow of traffic. They also failed to discuss that traffic is currently so bad on Toolebeck Road that a traffic light was recently installed at Deloach and Pine Log in an attempt to mitigate the dangerous conditions caused by the current volume of traffic coming off Toolebeck Road.
B) The Director’s narrative conspicuously mentions that the project site is only 156 feet from the City’s boundary in an attempt to sway the Commission Members thinking. However, the report makes no mention of how the City’s own Comprehensive Plan views this area as an “Industrial Node” and is nearby to the “Eastside Transition Zone”, which specifically excludes high density residential as a use.
C) This report makes absolutely no mention or reference to the material reasons, cited by various Planning Commission Members during the hearing of August 12, 2025, that lead to the denial of the application. Or, that none of those concerns have been addressed or remediated in the now larger site plan submitted with this application. In fact, this is basically the same site plan that was rejected, except it includes even more lots. Concerns that the developer was not willing to address then, and has not addressed now, include:
1) high density residential being the wrong use for this location, and not in keeping with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, (2) showing only a single entrance for this number of homes is a violation of Planning Commission practices and the recently City adopted Aiken Safe Streets Initiative, (3) developer opposition to funding a full secondary entrance onto Woodward Drive, and paving designated portions of Woodford Drive to City standards to accommodate the City’s emergency vehicles and alleviate traffic congestion onto Toolebeck Road and, 4) evidencing an agreement with the railroad company that owns Woodward Drive for access, entrancing, and paving permission.
Bias, Favoritism, and Violation of City Policy
A) On January 14th, 2025 the City Planning Commission reviewed City Services Requests for three projects, Cooper Place, Bridge Creek, and Bedford Place. Each project was located in the County in a UD Zone. Same as the Toolebeck Road application. Notably, each of the three reports submitted by the Planning Department to the Planning Commission for review that evening contained much more restrictive language than is contained in the Planning Department’s Toolebeck report. In fact, the Toolebeck report is entirely missing this important language. Here is the missing language:
“Policy Regarding Planned Residential ( PR) Zones
On October 23, 2006, the City Council adopted a policy that all rezoning, annexation, and City utility service requests for primarily residential development four (4) acres or larger will be developed under the PR (Planned Residential) zoning regulations.”
Obviously, the removal of this clause from the Toolebeck report reflects the Planning Director’s and Assistant Planning Director’s personal decision to hold this developer to a lower standard and far less scrutiny than the three others. Adhering to the City’s PR Zone criteria gives the City vast site plan modification powers in exchange for granting sewer access. Something that the Planning Director has consciously and wrongfully taken away from the City Council in the event they ever needed to use it.
Additionally, in each of the several “conditions sections” of the other three reports, the operative words “should be included” are used as instructions to the Planning Commission. In the Toolebeck report the words “could be included” have been substituted for the words “should be included” under each condition. How is it possible for the Planning Department to hold identical sewer requests to different standards? Why is the Toolebeck developer making out like a bandit, while the other three developers have to comply with stricter criteria?
B) The Toolebeck report states “plans have been submitted and approved for a public sanitary sewer line to connect the property to the nearest line serving the nearby Deodar Plantation.” I submit that this approval is a direct violation of written City Policy. The approval referenced in this sentence was granted in early May 2025. Engineered drawings had been submitted approximately a year earlier in 2024.
At that time, the proposed project was contiguous to then City Limits (it had been since November 2021) and was required to be annexed in order to legally access sewer services pursuant to signed documents.
City Policy states:
“New owners of contiguous properties (properties touching the City boundary) requiring a new water and/or sewer account are required to complete a petition for annexation and submit the executed document to the Planning Department prior to receiving the requested City service. This document starts the annexation process which requires a Planning Commission public hearing and two readings of an ordinance and approval by the City Council. The process takes approximately two months”.
The developer did not submit its Petition of Annexation until July 7, 2025. It does not appear that the Planning Department should have even accepted the drawings for review in 2024 without a Petition of Annexation on file, or have issued an approval of the drawings in May 2025 without a Petition of Annexation on file. It seems so implausible that this department cannot function within the policies set forth by the City, or even exhibit the ability to check a file for key documents.
At the Planning Commission hearing of August 12th, 2025, I asked Director Moultrie on the record if Resolution 08102020C had expired and if it was still valid, since it solely underpinned the high density requested on the site plan. Her answer was that she didn’t know. She later added, that it didn’t matter anyway, if it had expired. That answer only makes sense if she believed that the Annexation Application was going to get rubber stamped that night and the applicant wouldn’t need to rely on Resolution 08102020C to obtain sewer access. Turns out it did matter, a lot.
False Statements Contained in the Report:
A) Page one of the narrative portion of the report affirmatively states that an original concept site plan referred to in Paragraph A below was approved during the City of Aiken’s approval of the request for City Sewer Services in 2020, which culminated in the issuance of Resolution 08102020C. This is a patently false and misleading claim. The resolution clearly states it is supplying services to the property and makes no mention or reference whatsoever to the approval of any site plan. In fact, as described below, that original site plan was abandoned by the developer. This entire portion of the narrative should be stricken, and the Planning Commission so alerted prior to being allowed to vote on the application.
Misleading the Planning Commission
A) The Planning Department’s narrative refers to an “original concept plan including 247 single-family homes (169 detached and 78 attached) on 60.65 acres” against which it attempts to make comparisons to the current 172 lot submission. Please note, this “original concept plan” was a “placeholder” plan attached to the 2020 sewer service request application and subsequent resolution. The City has declared that resolution to be expired, null and void. Therefore, such placeholder site plan is also null and void. Additionally, said placeholder site plan was never the subject of an actual application or hearing. It is a “dead” drawing.
Furthermore, said placeholder site plan was not the site plan submitted for the annexation, zone change, and concept approvals application in 2025, or the premature sewer line extension approval. There is no validity incorporating that plan into any comparisons to the current submission.
In fact, throughout 2025 this proposed development has been publicly processed by the Planning Department as a 156 lot subdivision. So in reality, the number of lots has actually gone up to 172 and all comparisons to the “original plan” from 2020 should be ignored as irrelevant and inaccurate.
Furthermore, as a humorous side note regarding the Planning Department’s selective inclusion of comparisons based on the abandoned 247 home plan from 2020, said plan would reasonably be estimated to use 75,000 to 80,000 gpd of sewer flow. This represents 20 percent of the City’s remaining capacity 410,000 and over 5.3 percent of the City’s future 1.5 million gpd of capacity. Why would any sensible Planning Commission approve such a detrimental request to allocate the City’s scarcest resource to an out-of-City, non-conforming, high neighborhood impact proposal?
B) An analysis of the site plan and the Planning Department’s narrative shows a “double count” of large unbuildable utility easements as open space. These easements are already open space in perpetuity. They cannot be built on. The developer is not giving up 20% of his “net” buildable area for open space in this site plan. The Planning Department’s claim that the developer is meeting a 20% open space allocation, with or without the retention pond being included, is not supported by a dimensional schedule or an outline of said areas. There is also no supporting calculation of the amount of open space attributed to the utility easements as a percentage of the total claimed open space. A 20% allocation to open space would be 14.5 acres.
That does not appear discernible on this site plan.
C) No mention whatsoever that the traffic trips generated for this site plan are higher than the traffic trips generated for the site plan that was denied on August 25th, 2025.
D) No mention or discussion regarding the large amount of unbuildable utility easement acreage shown in the site plan being used as part of the density per acre calculations. Using gross acreage rather than net buildable acreage is a clever way to make the density numbers look more acceptable to the public. The true unit density per acre for this proposal should be recalculated, using only the net buildable acreage not including the utility easement areas, the retention pond, and the required perimeter buffers. I believe you will see the density per acre change dramatically.
Council members please consider your statutory obligations before voting to spend $2,000,000 of federal funding, awarded to the city of Aiken for Northside and Downtown redevelopment, as a buyer’s incentive to purchase the remaining publicly owned Project Pascalis properties.
Before any sales agreements were made, small business owners who are/were renting space in the city-owned Pascalis Property buildings expressed interest in buying their rented premises. They did this privately and publicly. They were reassured publicly but then denied the opportunity to purchase. The tenants were given 5-year lease agreements which were all signed and returned to the city. The city arbitrarily reneged on their offer of a lease to one of the tenants, while giving 5-year leases to other tenants. The city also paid substantial relocation expenses to yet another tenant. This is a commitment made by the city to assist with the relocation of displaced tenants, made with the caveat that tenants are/were not to discuss any part of the agreement publicly. An unusual city policy of threatening our small business owners in order to control their ability to speak honestly about city business practices.
Why were the Pascalis Properties only marketed as a group? The notable exception to this was Newberry Hall, which was sold as an individual property by the city to its original owners at a substantial loss to the city. The city acquired Newberry Hall, without an appraisal, for $2M and then sold it back, one year later for $1.15M. Although that is a $850,000 loss for the taxpayers, there is a precedence set by selling a business property to its current tenant for the appraised value. Less city incentives.
Would a company interested in restoring the Hotel Aiken want to be forced to also buy Vampire Penguin (with a five-year lease in place) and Warneke Cleaner, amongst the others? Why would a buyer who might be interested in restoring and reopening a business in the McGhee Block want to buy a hotel?
Why weren’t the publicly owned Pascalis Properties offered for sale to local business owners/tenants who wanted to purchase them?
Why are the properties only marketed as a group?
How much money could the city have made by selling these properties to local small business owners at the appraised values less incentives?
Why were some tenants given lease agreements while others promised lease agreements that were not honored?
Why did (at least) one tenant qualify for substantial relocation compensation between $50-75K in addition to the agreed amount?
If Newberry Hall could repurchase their property, at a loss to the city, then why not the others?
Why are/were small business owners bound to secrecy agreements?
The city decided to hire Colliers to market the remaining Pascalis Properties. We have not seen the criteria used to make this decision.
After the sale of Newberry Hall for $1.15M, the remaining $9.5M of city owned properties from the failed Pascalis Project had the approximate cost to taxpayers of $8.35M. Arguably, there were many other costs that should be considered, bond origination and payments, real estate commissions, closing costs, etc., but the $8.35M is the lowest amount due to repay taxpayers their investment made by city government in commercial real estate.
Although we have requested the closing statement for the original purchases by the city of the Pascalis Properties, our FOIA requests have been denied.
Colliers used one of its related companies to conduct an appraisal of the properties and established the value and consequently, the sales price of $2.5M. $8.35M worth of our property was appraised for $2.5M and no questions were asked? No second appraisal was ordered; no additional comps were offered. Colliers is the agent for the seller’s (us) and the buyers…and they set the price by using a Colliers company to appraise the property.
A small group was assembled by city government, including the Colliers agent, to review the offers made by prospective buyers on the Pascalis Properties and recommend which would be accepted. We do not know how the group members were chosen. The group held closed meetings without any minutes being taken. They did not meet publicly or comply with FOIA laws. Information was not available to the public on the choices available, or the decision-making processused to choose the winning offer on Pascalis Properties.
What was the criteria for inclusion in a group assembled to disburse more than $8.35M of publicly owned property? Why was this group exempt for FOIA Laws, public meetings, or any reports?
Why was an appraisal of $2.5M accepted on property the city paid $8.35M in 2021 That’s more than a 70% devaluation in a market that was very bullish.
What were the exact criteria used for choosing the preferred buyer from the alleged six other offers made?
Why was only one offer made available to the public?
Why was Colliers hired as our agent, and also the buyer’s agent and the appraiser, and on the city’s team of decision makers? They remain our agent and on the city’s team after the expiration of the listing agreement.
When asked, on the record, if a parking garage was a contingency of the sales agreement of the Pascalis Properties to the selected bidder, the City Manager stated it was not. At that time the appraised value of $2.5M was the agreed upon sales price with a $200k allowance to be paid by the city to the selected bidder for “design services”. Careful readers would have also discovered that the contract required the city to “repurchase” property from the selected bidder that would include Warneke, and other property not fully described, at a price that is not disclosedto build a parking garage at the city’s further expense (estimated at $7M). We can assume the city would then also pay Colliers a commission to “re-purchase”. This was presented at a public hearing and was accepted by the council’s vote.
The City Manager informed the public that a parking garage was not a contingency of the sale of the Pascalis Project properties, however the city contract with the successful bidder required the city to first sell, then “repurchase” land including Warneke Cleaners, but not fully described, for anundisclosed amount, for the construction of a parking garage at the city’s expense, which we now know is estimated at $7M.
The sales price of $2.5M was established by an appraisal from a company linked to the buyer’s agent, who is also our agent with the city reimbursing $200,000 for “design services”..
We do not know any specifics about any other offers made because no information has been made available. One offer made was rumored to be a purchase for $5M without contingencies. Another offer was rumored to be for a slightly lower amount made by a renowned historical restoration expert representing an established hotel restoration business without contingencies.
Now we are told that the selected bidder will also require the city to pay $2M for improvements to the Pascalis Properties prior to the sale. This was approved by council on first reading. This is in addition to the $200K, and the repurchase of part of the property, not fully described, for an undisclosed amount, and the city funding a $7M five story parking garage.
An additional $2M is now being required by the preferred bidder from the city to close the sale on the remaining Pascalis Properties. That brings the sales proceeds to only $300k, less the repurchase of Warneke and more undescribed property for an undisclosed price, which will likely cause the bottom line of the sales contract to show a cost to the city rather than any proceeds, and the city will be required to build a $7M parking garage.
Before committing to sell (give away) millions of dollars of publicly owned property at a complete loss, AND committing to build a huge multi-million-dollar parking structure with ingress and egress on Newberry Street, Council MUST do it’s due diligence.
Council must fully consider these “irregularities”.
All bids made to purchase the Pascalis Properties, including the interest of the current tenants, should be studied and considered, and the option of re-listing the properties should not be excluded.
ALL six current bids must be fully reviewed and the full decision-making process must be made public in order to have any kind of transparency or public trust in this process.
by H. B. Gianos Montmorenci Farms, LLC September 20, 2025
What’s at stake?
The City’s attempt to control and promote the future development of Historic Charleston Highway, Montmorenci and the Route 302 Equestrian and Agricultural Corridors through forced annexations and extension of their sewer utilities.
How are they attempting this?
In the summer of 2020, during the Covid panic and severely restricted attendance requirements at City Council meetings, a developer with property in the County located along Toolebeck Road, that happens to also lie within the City’s sewer district, applied for a City sewer connection. The developer had every right and expectation of remaining in the County. The developer did not request to be annexed into the City. The City agreed to a utility services agreement in August 2020 by adopting Resolution 081020C as a non-City, non-contiguous parcel.
What happened next?
City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh immediately went behind the developer’s back and negotiated a secret deal with Dominion Energy who owns property that touches the developer’s and is across the street from some City owned drainage land adjacent to Deodar Plantation.
The mission, to jump the City Limits clear across Toolebeck Road by buying a tiny strip of land, just 10 feet wide, that snakes its way through the Dominion Energy property to touch the developer’s parcel and take away his right to access the sewer line without a forced annexation into the City. (Figure 1)
Political extortion done without the developer’s knowledge. A confiscation of his property rights and sewer district rights, a theft of his money for City taxes, fees, and total City control of his site plan and development. The City pulled off this insidious plan just a month later, on September 14th, 2020, on a Covid restricted meeting night, when the Council unanimously passed Resolution 09142020D to purchase the 10 foot wide strip from Dominion Energy. Councilman Ed Giradeau stated on the record that evening before the vote, his desire to push the City’s boundaries eastward. (1)
Figure 1: “Satan’s Matchstick.” The 650-foot long, 10-foot wide piece of land acquired by the City of Aiken from Dominion Energy for $5,000. It ties the outer edge of the city limits at Deodora Plantation to a 66-acre parcel proposed for development.
Why did they do it this way?
The Council’s purchase of Satan’s Matchstick was done using a Resolution, not an Ordinance, which is often used by municipalities for buying property outside their limits that they plan to annex, and which Ordinance procedure is an absolute requirement under State Law to sell any properties they own.
A Resolution does not require a public notice, a public hearing, a public posting, and two public readings as an Ordinance does. It’s one and done. Resolutions are always buried at the end of their agenda under the subtitle of Permits and Requests. You can sneak a land purchase through this way without drawing attention to its intended purpose. That is how the City of Aiken is operated. Forced annexations by deceitfully creating contiguity and then withholding utilities. Followed immediately by new spot zoning and conceptual approval of incompatible site plans destroying long established County neighborhoods and districts. This City is in the business of purposely and deliberately manufacturing annexation sprawl that is destroying the County, its farmlands, its equestrian lands, its landscapes, individuals’ property values, rural lifestyles, neighborhoods, and our heritage. This is what your elected officials are doing with your money and your trust.
The Bottom Line.
The developer was the unknowing victim of this abuse of power. But, they were not its main goal. Its true purpose, as disclosed by Councilman Giradeau, was to create a beachhead on the County controlled Charleston Highway corridor located from the north side of Toolebeck Road to the southern edge of Charleston Highway, heading east towards Montmorenci, and the equestrian and agricultural belts. This 10 foot wide strip’s goal is to spark the development of all the farm fields heading east out of the City through a game of dominos, a property by property annexation allowing for the extension of the City’s sewer lines (Figure 2). That’s what the 10 foot strip is really all about. A Trojan horse, a seed of malicious intent, Satan‘s Matchstick. The fuse that will burn down historic Charleston Highway and turn it into Whiskey Road and the new Powder House Connector. By illustration, Satan’s Matchstick already touches three County parcels, Dominion Energy, Ring Power, and the developer’s.
Figure 2. Sewer District (light green). The area east of the 0.15 acre matchstick (see short red line) contains more than 1,000 acres of mostly agricultural land that city officials foresee as potential suburbia.
So what is the Proposed Project’s Current Status?
On August 12th, 2025 The City Planning Commission voted down the developer’s application for annexation, a zone change to PR, and their highly flawed 157 home, small lot conceptual site plan. That’s right folks, the City Planning Commission voted to deny the application. It now goes to the politically elected City Council for their vote to override their own Planning Commission. So far, the application for a First Reading to Override the Planning Commission Denial and approve the project has been pulled from the August 25th, the September 8th, and the September 22nd City Council agendas for different reasons. Whether it returns to the Agenda in October is unclear at this moment.
Why would they want to Override their own Planning Commission?
Why is the City Council voting to override its own Planning Commission’s denial and ram this application through just before the upcoming November election when three Council Members are about to be replaced? Because folks, it’s not about the application’s lack of merits as determined at the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing, its incompatibility with its industrial surroundings (Figure 3), its noncompliance with the City’s Master Plan, or the new Safe Streets Initiative recently adopted in March of this year, or the City’s own planning requirements for the requested PR Zone, or the Public Record established at the Planning Commission Work Session and Public Hearing about the numerous and severe defects in the proposed Conceptual Site Plan, or the health and safety of the future buyers, or our health and safety for that matter.
Figure 3. The City’s 10-year Comprehensive Plan describes the subdivision area as an “industrial node,”
In my opinion, it’s about one thing, and one thing only. Since the day that Stuart Bedenbaugh made the deal with Dominion Energy for Satan‘s Matchstick, it’s about annexing this 66-acre parcel at any cost. It’s about a wrong thinking mindset that functions by hurting your neighbor and surprise attacking them without their knowledge. It’s about causing a chain reaction of development all the way to Montmorenci and beyond. I believe the City Council’s override Ordinance is telling you that the application’s lack of compliance or merit doesn’t mean a thing to them, so long as it causes the annexation of that parcel and gives them a touch point to the farm next door. That’s what I think is really going on here……….the entire future of the Historic Charleston Highway Corridor and Eastern Aiken County is being determined by a 10 foot wide strip of dirt, opaquely conceived of and clandestinely obtained by your City Manager and City Council, Satan’s Matchstick.
What do we want?
We want the City to uphold its Planning Commission’s denial of the application. We also want them to acknowledge their wrongdoing, and political malfeasance in the creation and intent of Satan‘s Matchstick. We want them to make a Motion, and Resolve to immediately process an Ordinance to de-annex and divest of Satan‘s Matchstick back to Dominion Energy. This is a very simple process. It would restore the City’s boundary to the south side of Toolebeck Road, to where it was before this travesty of political abuse began. We all have a right to know what our government is doing with their land use decisions and how that decision will impact us.
H. B. Gianos Montmorenci Farms, LLC
Update:
After speaking with several Council Members at the Work Session of August 25 about this highly troubled application, three right minded Council Members sought to find a solution that did not involve annexing it, or approving it.
The application was subsequently pulled from the September 8 agenda while discussions amongst myself, the developer, Council Members, and the City Manager occurred. A solution, fully supported by the developer, myself, three Council Members and the City Manager was proposed to sell Satan‘s Matchstick back to Dominion Energy and de-annex it. Dominion Energy verbally agreed to buy it back after discussions with the City Manager .
However, a group of four Council Members led by Ed Giradeau, along with Kay Brohl, Andrea Gregory, and Ed Wolz have opposed that solution and are demanding that the application be reinstated to the agenda for a First Reading to Override the Planning Commission’s Denial to annex the 66 acre parcel, change its zone to PR, and approve the defective conceptual site plan.
This is not what the developer wants, and not what we want. It’s what these four politicians want, three of whom won’t even be Council Members come this November. You can’t make this stuff up folks. It defies the beliefs of any sound minded person. So the fight to save your properties, your values, and your way of life here has come down to finding one more vote from amongst these four politicians to join the three right minded Council Members in selling Satan’s Matchstick back to Dominion Energy and de-annexing it. If that is accomplished this contrived annexation application will be mooted and the developer’s property will be non-contiguous and back in the County where it has always been. We can then work with our own elected officials in the County to determine the outcome of the project.
Here are the official emails and phone numbers for the four City Council Members that are unsupportive of selling Satan’s Matchstick back to Dominion Energy and fixing the immoral and harmful act they perpetrated. They need to hear your feelings on this issue folks. They need your encouragement to do the right thing here and not leave another scandal on the steps of City Hall. I encourage you to contact them:
Kay Brohl at kbrohl@cityofaikensc.gov Ed Girardeau at egirardeau@cityofaikensc.gov Andrea Gregory at agregory@cityofaikensc.gov Ed Woltz at ewoltz@cityofaikensc.gov
Figure 4: Zoning Map. The proposed subdivision, on unincorporated lands, is in an Urban Development district. The AGY Plant is directly north.
Footnote
1. Meeting minutes from the September 14, 2020 City Council meeting.
Buck was little more than a year old in 2007 and only in his forever home for about 3 months when he and I went exploring in Hitchcock Woods. I had been to the woods on several occasions, mostly taking that familiar path from the main entrance at South Boundary, Devil’s Backbone, to the Horse Show Ring. We walked and walked, one path leading to another.
After a while, I noticed the sun was starting to set. I decided it was time to head back. It was then that I also discovered that we were lost. Did I bring a map? No! Why would I need a map?! After all, this was ‘just’ Hitchcock Woods! I tried to retrace our steps and was moving along quickly when we crossed paths with someone. Directions were shared, and the fellow admirer of the woods went his way, while Buck and I went ours, trying to find our way out. It didn’t take long before I realized that those well-intended directions just didn’t make sense.
All the while, the sun was slowly sinking off in the distance. I stopped. I felt like I wasn’t getting anywhere fast. Well, I was moving fast but no closer to where the hike started. The sky around me in those woods grew darker, and I made a decision: the woods aren’t that big, and if I headed in one direction long enough, I’d find my way out. With that in mind, I looked up towards the westward-setting sun, then set my course and started making tracks towards the south.
I found myself at the Palmetto Golf Course. Considering the day of the week and time of day, I felt the odds were slim of running across anyone, so I took the shortcut across the course. Getting to the other side, I reached a chainlink fence. I lifted Buck on my shoulder, climbed to the top of the fence, dropped him over on the other side and hurled myself over too. There on Whiskey Road, we walked along the sidewalk until arriving back at dirt lot at South Boundary. The sun had set, the stars were starting to shine, and Buck and I had our first of many adventures together.
_________
Recently, I started feeling my levels of stress rising and rising. It had been a while since I’d paddled or gone hiking anywhere, and there’s no better cure for stress than time spent outdoors. With that in mind, after work one day, I made a quick stop by the store, then headed to Hitchcock Woods at the Stable on the Woods entrance, which is located off of Dibble Road. With a quick change of clothes, I pulled on my boots and started down Cathedral Aisle. As I neared Black Gum Pond, I heard a Barred Owl in the distance. it wasn’t long before I felt that shift inside. I slowly started to unwind. Walking along, I cut off on the trail right before Black Gum Pond and started the slow climb uphill, continuing on until I reached High Point Line. In the back of my mind, I wanted to put in an hour’s hike, and I didn’t care what trails I took.
I’ve spent a lot of time in the woods over the years since that early adventure with Buck. Section by section, I learned the main routes that ran through the woods, north to south, and east to west. My general mode when I start another walk is to jump right in and follow whatever path seems to pull me in. I intend to get lost. The key, though, is that now I take a map — an important tool, since not every trail connecting the named trails has a name. I might head out on Coker Springs Road, but after heading down the main trail, I’ll take a left or a right, going deeper into areas with which I’m unfamiliar. Those unnamed, connector trails have the potential to make the day interesting.
Hiking along High Point Line, I cut across on another path and after a while, I noticed someone walking towards me. About that time, a light rain started to fall. We exchanged greetings and both agreed that the rain was a welcome event on this hot humid evening. She continued on her way and I on mine. The rain started falling harder, and I continued on my way, veering to the right on a path that seemed to offer some tree cover. As the rain came down, I looked over my shoulder and could see the pine trees on a slight incline with the sun shining through. The rain coming down made it a magical scene.
Walking along, I pulled out the map, but the rain made it difficult to read. I knew where I wanted to land so that I could connect back to Cathedral Aisle, and I had a sense of how long it would take to circle around to the start. I pulled out my phone to look at the time and noticed a missed call. Standing under some trees, with the rain falling down on me and all around, my friend and I talked about our days. I mentioned I was hiking in the woods with the intention of diverting from weights and gym workouts to connect with the outdoors for a while. My spirit needed it. They agreed. We said goodbye and I continued on. It wasn’t long before the trail I was on connected with another, and I recognized where I was – the Barton’s Pond Bridge, just as I planned.
The rain had stopped, and I started down Cathedral Aisle towards the parking lot and my car. In between the tall trees, the sun shone down, lighting everything it touched with a muted glow. Looking off into the trees, I stopped. Looking back between the trees, a doe was standing there frozen in motion. We stared at each other for a couple minutes, before she decided two’s a crowd. Off, deeper into the woods she went. I continued on, passing by Black Gum Pond. It wasn’t long before I was back in the parking lot. Drenched with both rain and sweat, I peeled out of my shirt and boots, then slipped on a t-shirt and Chacos. It’s handy to have some things in the car, just in case.
What strikes me and, yet, is not all surprising is how those things that were weighing on my mind as I went into the woods, somehow lifted out of my head and dissipated along those trails. While it may seem like some kind of mystery, science has confirmed what many of us knew for many years: time spent in nature is good for our physical and mental health.
Photographs by Wren Dexter..
Reflecting on this, I am taken back to the early days of the pandemic. I was an essential worker. When everyone was told to stay home, I found myself driving along roads where no other cars were seen. All along these roads, I would see acre after acre of clear cutting of trees. On these same roads I saw deer, raccoons, dogs and other animals, whose lives had been lost by the thud of a bumper. It was 2020 and I knew our area was going to explode in growth. During this time, I thought about our county commissioners. I thought about what we might talk about if we were to drive around the county. Maybe we’d talk about favorite foods or restaurants in the area. Or maybe we’d talk about music. Food and music may not save the world, but in a time when people can’t seem to agree on much, maybe we could find common grounds on these simple things.
I might also ask about their favorite places in Aiken County, and maybe we’d drive by there. After a while, I’d talk about what the natural world means to me; what I’ve learned from it over the years, and how it’s given me solace at times of grief. I’d talk about the damage to our communities when our natural world is only viewed as a commodity to be used up. Some of the bedrock environmental policies, supported and passed by Republicans and Democrats alike, have been weakened over the years through industry-supported attacks, and what we lose now can’t be undone.
What makes a place a great place to live? Hands down, it’s the trees, the rivers and lakes, and access to these special places that pulls people in. It’s about quality of life and recognizing that if we don’t protect these places, given all the ways they benefit us, who would we be?
Epilogue
It’s a little after 5 PM on Friday and I’m at a stop light on Powderhouse Road. As I look to the left and to the right on Whiskey Road, there’s a line of cars as far as I can see. Traffic is also lined up behind me on Powderhouse. It’s not unusual. And what these long lines of cars have to do with the clearcutting of trees is everything. It’s called sprawl.
When a developer proposes a project, they are supposed to submit a traffic study that looks at trips per day. Any development on or near Whiskey Road (or other high-volume roads) would automatically trigger a study. Next, the city engineer would review the study with a lens on current traffic levels and make recommendations. The review would then go to the planning commission and city council, who would then make a decision based on the study and recommendations from the city engineer. On a daily basis, I see evidence that whatever traffic studies were completed, and whatever recommendations were made by the city engineer, must have been ignored. How else could our roads be so far beyond capacity? There are solutions to this, and it’s called citizen involvement.
With the onset of explosive growth in the Central Savannah River Area, why are there few opportunities for citizens to weigh in on impacts to the places we call home? The City of Aiken has an Energy & Environment committee with two openings that have gone unfilled for a long time. There’s also a Citizen’s Advisory Committee that’s part of the Augusta Regional Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization (ARTS MPO). The last I knew, there was no chair for the committee and no non-elected official on that committee. The whole purpose of the citizen’s advisory committee, which services Richmond and Aiken Counties, as well as part of Columbia and Edgefield Counties, is to advise on transportation planning across the CSRA. And how transportation planning takes place has everything to do with the land.
With the total population of over half-a-million people in Aiken, Richmond, and Columbia Counties, there are no other citizen committees to advocate for our natural resources in this area. This has to change.
_________________
ABOVE: Whiskey Road gridlock on the southside. BELOW: Another longleaf pine forest clear-cut in 2024 on hillside acreage above Bridge Creek to expand the area subdivisions over to Trollelline Road, a road with already-existing issues of stormwater runoff, erosion and hazardous traffic conditions in the wake of growth and new developments over the past decade.
