Category Archives: Letters

Downtown Aiken: What are the Priorities?

Guest Editorial by John R. Davis

Although I am not a proponent of a parking “structure” in Aiken, I would like to offer the following.

During a previous Design review Board meeting it was reported that the Chairman stated that he thinks a parking garage should look like a parking garage.  A surprising statement from someone with Mr. Law’s background.  City leaders may want to look at what some other municipalities with historic districts have done to respect the history, culture and look & feel of their towns.  Aiken city leadership does not have a monopoly on good ideas.

Staunton Virginia is a town with its own historic district and rich history.  It is slightly smaller than Aiken (pop: 26,000).  The information below is an example of what can be done if a city respects what they already have and listens to their constituents.  I just hope that the next iteration from the proposed parking structure architect does not incorporate the DRB Chairman’s outdated belief.

From the architect’s website:

“Frazier Associates designed this three story, 277-space parking garage on the site of a former surface lot at the gateway to Staunton’s downtown historic district. The design intent was to create a dramatic and monumental three-arched facade to provide a sense of arrival to the community. In contrast, the west elevation is divided into seven separate smaller facades, with varied heights, recesses and openings, to relate to the scale and character of the surrounding historic commercial buildings.

“Retail space located at street level houses the Staunton Visitor Center. Frazier Associates collaborated with Pye Interiors of Charlottesville on the interior design. The garage design received five national and state awards including the Palladio Award from Traditional Building News. “

The above photos and text are used with the express permission of Frazier Associates, the architects of the Staunton, Virginia parking garage.

Some Questions:

  • Does Aiken really need a parking “structure?”
  • Should the city put a hold on any decisions that may include a parking garage or a SRNL Workforce Development Center before the future of the Hotel Aiken and other existing buildings are decided?
  • What if a potential bidder for the hotel will only consider restoring the hotel if they have adjacent guest parking spaces or even a parking “structure?”  Will some private investors be discouraged from bidding if restrictions are placed on city owned properties that are earmarked for other future projects?
  • If the city goes forward with some of their “new ideas,” what projects will receive a priority?  Doing multiple projects at the same time is not an option.  Will the hotel wait or will it be given priority status?  Is it really a priority today?  
  • Is there a Plan?  Or will the city officials once again make it up as they go?

______________

Pascalis or SRS Downtown: Following a Snake Through Brush

by Dr. Rose O Hayes
March 27, 2023

I am concerned about the proposed Savannah River Site (SRS) lab building, and additional parking facility, in downtown Aiken.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) SRS operations already have a large presence downtown. The old Post Office building at Park and Laurens is occupied by the main DOE/SRS contractor (Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, or SRNS). Another main DOE/SRS contractor, a spin off from AECOM called Amentum, is located on the Newberry Street mall. These are huge international firms. Such companies do not shrink, they expand.

The U.S. government’s proposal to locate a “nuclear lab/training center/administrative building” and parking garage in the heart of our small downtown is emblematic of that growth pattern. With that addition, federal government contractors also become the largest inextricably related business complex in our small downtown. These facilities, their architecture, and the nature of their business are a poor match with the unique southern belle character and look so popular with and enjoyed by Aiken residents and thousands of visitors each year. The growing presence of federal-government-business buildings in the midst of our small privately owned businesses harkens a significant change in the future profile and activities along Laurens Street and its crossing avenues, Park and Richland.

In addition, adding to the downtown federal worker and federal contract worker population will increase street traffic and require enlarged roadways for ingress and egress, supplementary traffic signals, etc. Whiskey Road is almost at maximum capacity now and years of planning have not resolved the traffic flow problem there. It will get decidedly worse if an SRS lab/training/admin center is added to the mix. Expanded infrastructures will also be required such as water and sewage systems. These modifications will have to be paid for by the taxpayers who are already footing the bill for the failed Pascalis Project.

Questions also remain about the tax and private interest dollars that have already been sunk into the failed Pascalis project. In order to have a clear understanding of the city’s $9.6 million debt for that cancelled plan, and why it was necessary, an audit should be conducted by an outside firm. Trying to follow the twists and turns the Pascalis planning took is like trying to chase a snake through brush. An audit would be in keeping with the mayor’s commitment to transparency and helpful in future planning as “lessons learned”.

Aikenites should be more concerned about the fact that the old leaking tanks and cleanup work on the edge of town at SRS are still not cleaned up, under the auspice of the major contractors, SRNS and Amentum. SRS remains a Superfund site on the PSL list (government priorities list ). The sites on the PSL list are areas contaminated with substances hazardous to the public. In addition, because of all the nuclear waste waiting to be cleaned up at SRS, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environment Control (SCDHEC) designated it as the major health and environment hazard in the state. Unfortunately, the former federal focus and commitment to clean up SRS has waned in favor of new processing campaigns involving imported foreign and domestic radioactive materials that produce more nuclear waste that has no place to go. Aiken needs the government/SRS to continue decontaminating the Superfund site, not expanding nuclear interests in the heart of our city.

The recent plutonium settlement monies, millions of which will be those tax payer dollars associated with the proposed SRS downtown lab, are state funds and must go to state political bodies (cities, towns, universities, counties, school districts, etc.) and not to any contractors. Since that money was a settlement due to the U.S. government’s failure to remove plutonium and other radioactive materials from SRS on a committed schedule (decades overdue), it should be repurposed to the cleanup mission. The critical need to continue the cleanup mission is highlighted by the recently released SRS plan indicating requirements to remediate cesium 137 detected in the site’s ponds, canal systems, creek banks and fish. The creek, Lower Three Runs, leads into the Savannah River. In humans, cesium 137 can cause skin burns, tumors and death.

And lastly, why is it necessary “to grow” Aiken’s downtown? It’s current state, popularity, and place for the community to enjoy is a model for success when compared to other small cities. Bringing in corporate-sized businesses will only detract from the charm that increasingly attracts people who come to enjoy and participate in it. Corporate office buildings will inevitably overshadow that alluring charm. Big business growth should occur on the edges of the town where space and parking is not an issue.

Universities with significant internship programs provide students with hands-on training at facilities where they are being trained to work. That suggests that the most advantageous location for the new SRS lab would should be the SRS site.

It’s time for Aikenites to decide if and how they want our downtown to grow, and speak out. Someone once said, “Things are run by those who show up.” A lot of people are saying they don’t speak out or show up because the officials no longer listen. Well, if enough of us show up and/or speak out often enough, we will be heard. Will Rogers said, “You get the government you deserve.” And, there are always the voting polls.

Dr. Rose O. Hayes, former member of the SRS CAB and chair of the Nuclear Materials Committee

Decisions First, Criteria Second?

Questions to City of Aiken Regarding its Council Redistricting Plan.

by Don Moniak

February 14, 2023.

Two hours and forty five minutes after Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon called the February 13, 2023 Aiken City Council meeting to order, the last item on the agenda was addressed:

“V(2). Approval of a Resolution Establishing City Council District Boundaries.

A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.


The agenda item itself was contradictory, stating the resolution (1) established boundaries even though the resolution itself is only “relating to the establishment” of boundaries. In fact, the resolution does not define boundaries, it defines criteria for the boundaries. No boundary maps were released or approved via resolution Monday night.

According to the supporting memorandum (2) from City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, boundaries will not be approved until after two public information sessions are held—more than one year after the process was initiated.

However, according to an exchange with contract attorney James Holly, boundaries have been drawn, if not finalized. After Councilwoman Lessie Price asked if “these are the latest plans that we reviewed at our last meeting,” Mr. Holley confirmed that was the case.

Attorney James Holly responding to a question regarding voting district plans at 2:46 of the meeting. (Photo: CIty of Aiken You Tube channel)


Mr. Holley has been working on redistricting with the city’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) office for more than a year, billing the city 35 hours and ~$9400 for the first six months of 2022 alone. Mr. Holley was present at the November 28, 2022, closed-door Executive Session which Council held, in part to “receive legal advice regarding possible changes to the City Council districts (3) resulting from the population and demographic information compiled as part of the 2020 Decennial Census.”

More legal advice on redistricting was provided during another Executive Session held on January 9, 2023.

To clarify the situation, the following email was sent to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh and cc’ed to Mayor Osbon and City Council members.

Mr. Bedenbaugh, 

Could you clarify the resolution on City Council District Boundaries that was passed last night? Due to the meeting running so late, I deferred on asking any questions about this year-long process that has involved several Executive Session meetings. 

1. Your supporting memorandum stated that it was “necessary for Council to adopt via Resolution the criteria to produce updated district maps.” Ten criteria are identified in the resolution. 

2. On the other hand, the announced public information sessions are intended to “allow citizens to provide their input regarding the proposed updated Council district boundaries.” The first of these meetings is scheduled for February 23rd, one week from Thursday

3. During the reading of the resolution, you stated a map will be made available today. 

4. During the reading, Councilwoman Price asked: 

“Are these the last plans that we reviewed at our last meeting?” (This would have been an executive session on 1/9/23?). 

Attorney Holley replied in the affirmative. 

5. Questions: 

a.  Why were the criteria adopted more than one year after the process began as early as January 2022? In February 2022 contract attorney Jim Holley began meeting with GIS Administrator Tim DeTroye and others to work on this sensitive issue, and this work continued throughout 2022. For the first six months of 2022 alone, Attorney Holley billed  the city ~55 hours at a cost of ~$9400 for redistricting legal work. 

b. Why were the criteria adopted one day before the map would be made available? 

It sounds like Council actually adopted the boundaries last night by virtue of accepting the criteria to define the boundaries, and is now seeking public input on a decision, not public input on a process. If this is an incorrect assessment, please advise. 

Thank You,
Donald Moniak


Footnotes

(1) Resolution approved by Aiken City Council on February 13, 2023.


(2) Supporting City Manager’s Memorandum for the Resolution.



(3) Map of current Districts.