On March 17, 2023, Schofield Community Association acting president Bill McGhee sent the following email to Aiken City officials. More than two weeks later, the letter remains unanswered.
[Note: Click on letter to view in full size.]
For more information on the DEMO 200 program, proposed downtown demolitions, and the recent demolition of the Hahn Village public housing development, see City of Aiken Demolition Index.
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.
by Don Moniak
August 29, 2022
Following is an update since June 13, 2022 on various aspects of the City of Aiken’s $100 million plus demolition and redevelopment endeavor known as Project Pascalis. For information prior to that time, see A Project Pascalis Timeline.
Four developments and trends are notable:
Timeline Since June 21, 2022
June 13: The AMDC and City Council spend two hours in a joint closed-door Executive Session to discuss “to discuss Project Pascalis with City Council and the developers.” City Council cites the following open meeting exemption to justify closing the doors “pursuant to Section 30-4-70(a)(2) for consideration and discussion of matters related to development of Project Pascalis regarding negotiations incident to proposed contractual arrangements related to Project Pascalis and receipt of related legal advice.”
June 21: Public comment is prohibited from Design Review Board public workshop that lasts nearly three hours.
Prior to the workshop, AMDC Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. meets with AMDC to “work on a new direction and how to get there.” (2)
The AMDC checking account has a balance of $101,195.30
June 22: AMDC Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. works on an “omnnibus ordinance,” and “revising the redevelopment plan,” for 3.0 hours. Details are unknown. (2)
Gary Pope, Jr. also spends two hours reviewing South Carolina’s “Community Development Corporation Act, schedule, and proposed revisions to Project Pascalis plan.” (Community Development Corporation Act allows for the creation of non-profit corporations with “a primary mission of developing and improving low-income communities and neighborhoods through economic and related development,” and community development financial institutions to assist with credit and capital.
https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/2009/title-34/chapter-43
June 24: The City of Aiken posts forty-five Demolition Application notices for a July 5th hearing in front of Newberry Hall, Warneke Cleaners, the former State Farm building on Newberry Street; the McGhee Building (historic CC Johnson Drug Store, On Board Realty, Security Finance), Taj Aiken Restaurant, and the former Holley House motel on Richland Avenue.
AMDC Attorney Gary Pope, Jr. works on “redevelopment plan and necessary items to pivot project” for 5.5 hours.
June 27: Pope-Flynn staff work 12.2 hours to “prepare for meeting at City of Aiken. Participate in Executive Session.”
Aiken City Council votes unanimously to enter into closed-door, Executive Session “to discuss negotiations incident to proposed contractual arrangements relating to Project Pascalis and receipt of related legal advice.” The closed-door session lasts one hour, and there is no further discussion of Project Pascalis during the subsequent open meeting.
June 29: Demolition Application from RPM Development Partners, LLC to the Design Review Board to demolish motel is withdrawn Current status of demolition plans is unknown.
July 5: Lawsuit filed on behalf of nine plaintiff’s seeking injunction to stop project; citing violations of City of Aiken ordinances and laws governing South Carolina community development, local government comprehensive planning, ethics and conduct of public officials, freedom of information, and local government planning.
Plaintiffs seek to stop Project Pascalis by asking for “a declaration from the Court that certain actions of the City and certain municipal bodies are null and void and incapable of being implemented, in whole or in part” and “injunctions preventing the continued implementation of the null and void acts.” Plaintiffs do not ask for damages.
Court Filings to date in Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al; from most recent.
| Osbon, In His Capacity As Mayor, and City Council | Motion/Protection from Discovery | 8/22/2022-09:50 |
| Mayor and City Council | Exhibit B: Discovery Documents | |
| Blake, David W. | Service/Acceptance Of Service on Raines Company | 08/17/2022-08:19 |
| City Of Aiken | Answer/Answer | 08/15/2022-22:45 |
| City Of Aiken | Motion/Dismiss | 08/15/2022-22:23 |
| Smith, Gary | Answer/Answer | 08/11/2022-14:54 |
| Blake, David W. | Service/Acceptance Of Service on Rpm Development Partners, LLC | 08/08/2022-14:41 |
| Blake, David W. | Service/Acceptance Of Service on Aiken Design Review Board | 07/28/2022-09:02 |
| Smith, Gary | Service/Acceptance Of Service on Gary Smith | 07/12/2022-14:53 |
| Blake, David W. | Summons & Complaint | 07/05/2022-10:24 |
July 9: The law firm of Pope-Flynn submits $20,546.03 bill to the AMDC for fifty-nine hours of work completed in June, 2022.
July 11: Aiken City Council meets in closed door executive session with Attorney Daniel Plyler for two hours to discuss legal matters related to the lawsuit, but a Joint executive session with the AMDC is cancelled.
Aiken City Council tables amendment to amend AMDC establishment ordinance to correspond to by-laws written by the AMDC that allows non-residents of the city who have “vested business interests” to serve as AMDC members. No questions pertaining to the tabled amendment are allowed by Presiding Officer Mayor Rick Osbon.
July 12: AMDC Property Manager On Board Realty deposits $11,205.00 in rent payments to the AMDC checking account.
AMDC cancels monthly meeting, reportedly due to quorum issues.
July 13-14. In response to a citizen alert to the City of Aiken, the AMDC removes dozens of files from its “Transparency Page” at aikenmdc.org. The files contained copies of AMDC checks and personal business information that was not properly redacted.
July 22: Historic Aiken Foundation sends letter to AMDC Chairman Keith Wood requesting increased safety and security measures at the Hotel Aiken.
July 25 to 31: City of Aiken code enforcement begin removing “Say No to Project Pascalis” signs from the right-of-ways in front of private residences, citing the city’s complex sign ordinance.
July 26: Chairman Wood replies to Historic Aiken Foundation, denying all issues raised.
AMDC checking account has balance of $53,014.41
July 28: Aiken Public Safety conducts first fire inspection at Hotel Aiken since March, 2021.
August 4: City of Aiken begins to routinely triple the fees for some Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests; increasing the rate for document “search, retrieval, review, and redaction” from $16/hr to $48/hr.
August 9: AMDC cancels monthly meeting for second straight month due to lack of a quorum.
August 10-11 In response to a FOIA request, the AMDC reposts most of the invoices previously removed in mid-July, and invoices since April 1, 2022, within a file named “AMDC Financial Binder” is posted to the commission’s “Transparency Page,” https://aikenmdc.org/2022/03/29/project-pascalis-public-records/. The unannounced posting marks the first change to the AMDC website since the records were removed.
August 12: In Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for City Attorney Gary Smith submit “Answer of Defendant Gary Smith.” A review of the answer can be viewed at The Gary Smith Defense: An Admissions, Inconsistencies, and More New Questions Than Answers at the Aiken Chronicles.
August 15: In Blake et al vs. City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for the City of Aiken file:
August 18: In Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for the Plaintiff file discovery questions and requests for information:
First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Rick Osbon
First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Rick Osbon
First Set of Interrogatories to All Members of Aiken City Council
First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to all Members of Aiken City Council.
August 22: In Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al, Attorneys for the City of Aiken file: “Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order on Behalf of Defendants Osbon, Brohl, Diggs, Girardeau, Gregory, Price, and Woltz;” in response to August 18th discovery issuance.
August 23-26: AMDC adds thirteen pages of partially redacted documents to its “AMDC Financial Binder.” Four of the documents had been already disclosed by the AMDC prior to mid-July; those copies contained no redactions.
Status as of August 28, 2022
As of August 25, no answer has been forthcoming from attorneys representing the Design Review Board or the Aiken Municipal Development Association.
The Master Development Agreement (MDA) necessary for any future work appears to be still in negotiation, and time is running short. On December 3, 2021, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) wrote:
The initial Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) announced today gives the AMDC and RPM until no later than Summer 2022 to come to terms on a mutually beneficial Master Development Agreement. (4)
No such agreement has been announced, and the AMDC has not replied to a letter asking for the exact deadline date on the PSA, even though this date is not pertinent to the lawsuit.
No announcements on the status of the MDA, the second demolition application, or any other aspect of the project such the “omnibus ordinance,” a new redevelopment plan, or the possibility of a non-profit corporation to replace the AMDC has been forthcoming from the City of Aiken.
The tree growing out of the window on the second floor of the Berkman Building on Laurens Street, above Beyond Bijou, remains. A photo of this tree was first used by the AMDC on November 9, 2021 to illustrate the “blighted status” of its new downtown properties. The AMDC has not acted to remove the tree since that time.
__________________
References and Notes
(1) This information is contained in the Pope-Flynn law firm’s June 2022 billing invoice to the AMDC, found on Page 161-162.
(2) Comments on August 15, 2022 motion and answer:
In the motion to dismiss Mayor Osbon and individual members of City Council, the city’s attorneys cited the South Carolina Tort Claims Act to argue that only a government entity must be named. They argue that individuals are “not proper parties” and “must be dismissed as they are already represented through defendant City of Aiken;” while admitting the City of Aiken was “correctly named the governmental entity” to which the Mayor and City Council belong. In other /words, they argue the City of Aiken can be sued in whole but individuals representing the city are exempt, under Tort law.
Torts are, by definition, “an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability.”
(For more on Tort Law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort)
Since the lawsuit is not a tort action and not a liability case, and no damages are being sought, it is unclear why the City’s attorneys are making this argument.
In the “answer on behalf of defendants,” City attorneys cite the motion to dismiss by arguing, “Defendants are simply the alter-ego of the City of Aiken, and therefore said Defendants must be dismissed.” The South Carolina Tort Claims Act is cited again, even though the word “Tort” is absent from the July 5th Summons and there is no request for damages, only injunctive relief.
In total, City attorneys offered sixteen defenses but provided minimal to zero substance for the various defenses; and denied nearly every allegation beyond the fact the City of Aiken is a municipality.
(3) Comments on “Requests for Production of Documents” and the “Motion for a Protective Order” to exclude individual defendants from discovery.
The requests for documents is the first basic phase of discovery. It is a request casting a wide net for documentation relating to the project, and includes a request for:
“Any and all documents and other things, including letters, e-mail, texts, entries in social media, journals, photos, recordings, sketches, videos, logs, diaries, notes, or other written material of any kind in any media in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant or its counsel which relate in any way to the claims or defenses alleged in this action. If Defendant is asserting a privilege, please provide a privilege log.”
The defendant’s lawyers responded to the plaintiff’s request for the production of documents by arguing that individual city council members and the Mayor
“should not have to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests until a ruling has been made on their pending Motion to Dismiss.”
If the Motion to Dismiss the individual council members and the Mayor is denied, then the individuals will be subjected to the rules of discovery. If the motion is approved, any official business conducted by city council members and the Mayor will remain subject to the rules of discovery, because the City of Aiken will remain a defendant.
(4) The AMDC announcement from December 3, 2021 also reads:
“The agreement will include complete designs, engineering and permitting required to move forward with Project Pascalis. Any such development agreement would establish, among other things, the price the developer would pay for the property, and the amount the developers would be required to invest in the proposed privately funded, owned/operated hotel and residential portions of the project. The AMDC also intends for the agreement to hold the project to strict completion deadlines that will ensure it moves at a deliberate pace and avoids potential delays. The Master Development Agreement being negotiated would also establish fixed pricing for the proposed conference center and parking facility that would be purchased by the City of Aiken upon completion.”
From:
AMDC begins Development Agreement negotiations
Dec 3, 2021
Recently obtained emails between City of Aiken officials further reveal bias and irregularities in the legal process for the controversial Project Pascalis. The emails to and from City of Aiken Design Review Board Chairman McDonald Law were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (1), and are dated between March 1st and June 22, 2022. They indicate:
The City of Aiken’s Design Review Board (DRB or Board) reviews all applications for any architectural change and enforcing the zoning ordinances in the city’s historic districts. Essentially, it’s purview is to protect the historical integrity that makes historic district neighborhoods some of the most financially valuable in South Carolina and certainly in Aiken County.
The Board’s deliberations are described as “quasi-judicial,” meaning it functions as an administrative court of law in which fair, full, and unbiased hearings are expected. Since the Board’s decision can only be appealed in the courts, it is arguably the most city’s powerful arbiter regarding proposed changes to the historic district; making its Chairperson one of the more powerful appointed positions in the city.
This year the Design Review Board has reviewed a wide array of proposed property changes in the historic district, including the following modifications to private homes:
This category of seemingly minor requests dominates the Board’s proceedings, but larger projects are also heard. The two most notable this year were scheduled on March 1st and July 5th.
The final item on the Board’s March 1, 2022 agenda was “hearing for demolition of 235 Richland Avenue and 106 Laurens Street.” These are the vacant Hotel Aiken, long a subject of dispute, and the adjacent building, also of 1920 origin, to its south housing a trio of active businesses: Beyond Bijou, Vampire Penguin, and Ginger Bee.
The buildings were acquired by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) on November 9, 2021, following a complex and tangled web of transactions spanning eight months. (2) The AMDC is a redevelopment agency established by Aiken City Council in 2019.
The March 1, 2022 hearing proceeded as planned, and the first demolition approval was made by a 6-1 vote, further inflaming an already contentious debate about the largest redevelopment project in downtown Aiken since the 1953 gas explosion. The DRB’s approval of that demolition request was an essential first step in the City of Aiken’s downtown demolish and redevelop endeavor called Project Pascalis, an effort involving more than three acres of a city block of seven and a half acres.
The Pascalis project will displace eight small businesses (3) and place Newberry Hall, the only business hosting and catering to large downtown meetings and conferences, on hiatus during the three plus years of construction. Large outdoor events will need to be relocated from the popular Newberry Street festival area that is also threatened with demolition.
A second hearing for demolition of the remaining four buildings owned by the AMDC, as well as a former State Farm Insurance office owned by Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC, was scheduled for July 5, 2022. The hearing was cancelled after the city’s chosen developer withdrew the application on June 30th. (4) Instead of a demolition hearing, a lawsuit seeking an injunction to halt the project was filed on July 5th, and prominently features the DRB among the many allegations of legal misconduct. (5)
The four buildings owned by the AMDC and subject to the cancelled demolition request are the Holley House motel (currently vacant), Newberry Hall (6), Warneke Cleaners, and the building known as the old CC Johnson Drug Store.
The latter was built in 1920 by McGhee and McGhee general contractors to house the historic CC Johnson Drug Store. This business was an important Aiken feature in at least one edition of “The Negro Motorist Green Book.” More recently the building housed Pat’s Restaurant and lastly the Playoffs Bar.
After the building was threatened with demolition during a previous downtown redevelopment proposal in 2017, Bill and Bernice McGhee expressed a desire to maintain the building.(7) Bill McGhee’s grandfather William McGhee, along with A.G. McGhee, owned and operated McGhee and McGhee, which also constructed the first Aiken Hospital in 1917, (no longer in existence), and notable Aiken landmarks including the Fermata Club and the iconic serpentine wall at Hopelands and Whiskey.
With a business motto of “restoring Aiken, one brick at a time,” the McGhee family remains prominently and deeply involved with historic preservation projects. The AMDC itself has proudly described them as partners in the commission’s Williamsburg Street redevelopment efforts. If you see an old house being moved on an Aiken street, it is likely to involve the McGhee family businesses.
In January 2020 Bill McGhee received The Aiken Award “for his restoration work of old residences on the city’s Northside.” After that honor, Bill and Beatrice McGhee also received the second lifetime achievement award ever bestowed by the Historic Aiken Foundation.
These efforts also made the McGhees regulars before the Design Review Board. For example, in January 2021 the Board unanimously approved their application to relocate and restore two historic homes to 222 Williamsburg, St, SE. One of the homes, at 147 Newberry Street, NW, had been previously approved for demolition, but the owner agreed to donate the structure to the McGhees.
The McGhees advocacy for preserving the CC Johnson Drug Store was not well received by Chairman Law. In a March 20, 2022 email exchange, Mr. Law wrote to Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant:
If the parking structure is rotated 90 degrees, the Richland Ave building frontage can remain its current length. Another advantage, and not a small one, is that the side of the McGhee and McGhee building can also be preserved. The McGhees have unfortunately been activated to oppose the entire project based on misinformation about efforts to preserve the corner.
This marginalization of the family’s concerns continued into April. On April 4th Mr. McGhee wrote to City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh:
Sir
We have been in contact with Brent Leggs’ office of the National Trust African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund about the Dr. C. C. Johnson Drugstore/McGhee Building. We have provided Ms. Tiffany Tolbert, Associate Director, with information about the proposed demolition and the historic significance of the property to the City of Aiken. Ms. Tolbert has offered to examine options other than demolition and guidance from NTHP. When may we arrange a conference call with Ms. Tolbert, your office and members of the Concerned Citizens group?
Mr Bedenbaugh responded:
Bill,
The property is owned by the Aiken Municipal Development Corporation, which is governed by its own board. You will need to work through Tim O’Briant [cc’d above] to schedule a meeting with their officials.
Mr. O’Briant then asked Mr. McGhee:
Can your group and the Trust folks be available for the April 12 Commission meeting at 3:30 pm? Let me know and I can set it up.
A presentation slot was set up for the April 12th meeting. Normally presentations from outside parties are placed at or near the top of city council, board, and commission agendas. For example, at its November 9, 2021 meeting the AMDC placed presentations by consultants Joseph Minicozzi of Urban3 and Chris Brewer of AECOM at the top of the agenda and before commission business.
On April 12, the “presentation regarding CC Johnson Drug Store Recognition and Proposed Facade Preservation—Bill McGhee” was sixth on the agenda. An “Economic Development Master Plan Implementation Update” by $4,000-a-month consulting program manager Tom Hallman was at the top of the agenda. It was Mr. Hallman’s second update on the same master plan in six months.
The AMDC’s meeting minutes for that day are long on detail for Mr. Hallman’s presentation and devoid of detail for Mr. McGhee’s presentation. Six pages of minutes are devoted to Mr. Hallman’s update and associated commissioner questions and comments. It was at this meeting that the issue of the Hitchcock Woods arose, with Chair Keith Wood asking:
Mr. Wood noted that the Commission had talked about working with Hitchcock Woods to make the Woods more open for public use and for marketing. It is a huge resource for the city. He asked if anything had developed there yet, and if the Commission should revisit that.
The Hitchcock Woods are a large privately owned and managed “urban forest” mostly outside the physical jurisdiction of the AMDC, and entirely outside its legal jurisdiction.
In contrast a short paragraph was devoted to the McGhee’s presentation regarding the CC Johnson Drug Store.
The minutes merely read:
Mr. Wood stated the next item is a presentation from Mr. Bill McGhee regarding recognition of the CC Johnson Drug Store property on the corner of Newberry Street and Richland Avenue which is a part of the Pascalis Project.
Mr. McGhee stated he had been talking with the National Trust for historic preservation called Saving Places . He said he planned to have someone from that group to talk to MDC today , but he had not been able to make those arrangements. He is still working with them to see what they can do to help us save as much as we can of the Johnson Drug Store. He pointed out that presently the plan is to destroy the building and to leave a wall. He said he was looking to save the whole building.
If there were any comments or questions that day from Commissioners, they were not recorded in the minutes. McDonald Law was also at the meeting and received the email exchange leading to the presentation, but no other DRB members attended the event and it does not appear any other members were notified. According to the minutes, Mr. Law’s only comment that day, just a month after describing Mr. McGhee as “activated” by “misinformation” was:
McDonald Law stated following up on the comment about DRB input on Pascalis , they had a work session and received a good many comments from the public and Commissioners. The developers responded very quickly to DRB’s comments at their last meeting.
On April 20th, Project Pascalis developers presented their latest renditions. A compromise was proposed to repurpose the existing storefront facade as the entrance to the proposed luxury apartments, with the idea to “tell the story of of the CC Johnson Drugstore and and that’s really the most important thing.” (8)
On May 3rd, the DRB held its monthly meeting. On the agenda was another demolition proposal, this time for the house at 147 Newberry St, NW which the McGhees had been methodically salvaging and preparing to move. The applicant this time was the Aiken Corporation, which had a contract to buy the property and two adjacent vacant lots. According to the application:
The Board previously gave its consent to Bill McGhee to move the house to another location. Upon information and belief, Mr. McGhee was unable move the house due to the required removal and substantial trimming of a number of trees and abandoned all efforts to move it.(9)
The Board voted unanimously to approve. Bill and Bernice McGhee were not present at the hearing. Two months later Bernice McGhee was listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit to stop the Pascalis project; and McDonald Law was named as one of thirty defendants.
________________
Next: Part 2: The Chairman’s Bias: A Demolition “Home Run,” evasion of the legal process, and the steering towards approval.
References
(1) On June 23, 2022 I submitted a FOIA request asking for “All email and paper communication between Design Review Board Chair McDonald Law Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, and/or AMDC Chair Keith Wood between March 1, 2022 and June 22, 2022.” The intent of the request was to obtain information relating to Mr. Law’s advocacy for relocating the proposed conference center location to the recently vacated city hall building at 214 Park Avenue, West.
The city responded on July 8th with 15 email exchanges and 16 attachments.
(2) See “A Project Pascalis Timeline.”
(3) The businesses being forced to relocate or even close are Warneke Cleaners, Taj Restaurant, On Board Reality, Nationwide (already moved), Security Finance, Beyond Bijou, Vampire Penguin, and Ginger Bee.
(5) The Historic Aiken Foundation is one of nine plaintiff’s in the lawsuit. A book-style presentation of the lawsuit, as well as a summary of project issues, is at:
(6) For more information on how Newberry Hall became a part of the project, see:
(7) https://apnews.com/article/f5ba48e261d44842880a421a5264297c is an Aiken Standard article featuring the McGhee family.
(8) RPM Development Partner’s project manager Jay Hamm. See transcript at:
https://pastebin.com/X7R9dkHb?fbclid=IwAR0PO4sICvolkCrEfVQdVkFCjl6Tv4sU2ArE5_VdR3qcPgOxazrmTHF18sg
(9) FOIA request for correspondence since January 1, 2022 between the AMDC and the Aiken Corporation was met with a $112 cost estimate for more than seven hours of search, retrieval, and review of records. The estimate has been appealed.
Additional Information and Resources:
Design Review Board bylaws
https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=407760&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF
DRB Meeting Minutes: January 5, 2021
https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=551455&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF
DRB Meeting Minutes: March 1, 2022
https://edoc.cityofaikensc.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2735903&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Aiken-LF
On Friday June 24 the City of Aiken posted 45 notices of a July 5th Design Review Board (DRB) hearing involving a proposal from the Aiken Municipal Development Association (AMDC) and RPM Development Partners, LLC to demolish the buildings on six properties in downtown Aiken, SC.
On Wednesday June 29 each of the 45 notices were prominently covered with a sign stating “withdrawn.”
Substantial confusion enveloped the issue, with the Aiken Standard reporting the hearings have been “postponed.” In a Zoom meeting at noon today to discuss Project Pascalis, Standard reporter Matthew Christian repeated the assertion the meetings were postponed; saying a city spokesperson cited proximity to the holiday weekend and undefined COVID-19 concerns for the postponement.
But according to DRB legal counsel Jim Holley, there are no pending applications, meaning the demolition requests are withdrawn—at least temporarily—and must be resubmitted for any hearing to take place. In an email addressing a related issue of possible ex-parte communications involving a Board member, Holley wrote:
“Based on my understanding, there are currently no pending applications before the DRB on the downtown project. Also, there are no work sessions currently scheduled on that subject.”
Mr. Holley served honorably as legal counsel for Aiken County Council for many years and presently is advising the Design Review Board during the most contentious downtown development plan of the century.
