Jump to content

vicupstate

Pendleton Street [between West End and West Greenville]

Recommended Posts


18 hours ago, Joey_Blackdogg said:

Wonder if the rezoning would spur this redevelopment of the Macdonald's Appliance Repair building at the corner of Pendleton and Academy. The renderings look nice.

https://www.collettre.com/images/Properties/Pendleton___Academy_Flyer_09.26.17.pdf

image.png.6afa3eafadf5607a70d0f605a106b0b2.png

Wasn't that parcel removed from the RDV rezoning?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2018 at 8:55 AM, vicupstate said:

If we had refused to 'break any eggs' in order to make a cake, DT, West End and West Greenville would have remained downtrodden.  

I missed this, but late's better than never I suppose....

A couple of observations:

1) These "eggs" you are referring to are actually people, their property, and, at least potentially, their livelihoods. Maybe you didn't mean it this way, and I don't know you, but that statement comes across as pretty cavalier. And anyway, the analogy doesn't work: I don't keep people in my virtual fridge just in case I need to take or alter their property without their consent. Eggs are at my disposal; people should never be treated as if they're at anyone else's disposal, including the "public's". That analogy trivializes what may be deeply serious business for the person affected.

2) "Downtrodden" is a pretty loaded--and debatable--description. But whatever. You assert what you can't possibly know: i.e, what would have happened if these various highly debatable exercises of eminent domain--or, in the Pendleton St. case, rezonings--hadn't occurred. In other words, you haven't made an argument for anything. You've at best expressed your approval of a certain state of affairs.

I don't know Dino or anything about his situation, so I can't comment on it. But as a matter of principle, part of living in community is respecting your neighbor's integrity, even if you don't think he has any. Taking or altering a person's property in order to transfer it to another person who will profit from it, or in order to do a public project in a certain preferred--as opposed to absolutely unavoidably necessary--way, is a repudiation of neighborliness and of any just conception of eminent domain. And aren't at least some re-zonings basically a back-door, uncompensated form of eminent domain? To the extent that something is being "taken," I would say so.

But I guess the precedent's been set, so, just like Senate Democrats who used the nuclear option in 2013--don't complain if and when they do the same to you and your property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, eminent domain can only be put into practice for publicly used land. There is no transferring of property from one person to another by this method. Rezoning of property is not forcing anyone's hand in selling their land or altering their business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Exile said:

I missed this, but late's better than never I suppose....

A couple of observations:

1) These "eggs" you are referring to are actually people, their property, and, at least potentially, their livelihoods. Maybe you didn't mean it this way, and I don't know you, but that statement comes across as pretty cavalier. And anyway, the analogy doesn't work: I don't keep people in my virtual fridge just in case I need to take or alter their property without their consent. Eggs are at my disposal; people should never be treated as if they're at anyone else's disposal, including the "public's". That analogy trivializes what may be deeply serious business for the person affected.

2) "Downtrodden" is a pretty loaded--and debatable--description. But whatever. You assert what you can't possibly know: i.e, what would have happened if these various highly debatable exercises of eminent domain--or, in the Pendleton St. case, rezonings--hadn't occurred. In other words, you haven't made an argument for anything. You've at best expressed your approval of a certain state of affairs.

I don't know Dino or anything about his situation, so I can't comment on it. But as a matter of principle, part of living in community is respecting your neighbor's integrity, even if you don't think he has any. Taking or altering a person's property in order to transfer it to another person who will profit from it, or in order to do a public project in a certain preferred--as opposed to absolutely unavoidably necessary--way, is a repudiation of neighborliness and of any just conception of eminent domain. And aren't at least some re-zonings basically a back-door, uncompensated form of eminent domain? To the extent that something is being "taken," I would say so.

But I guess the precedent's been set, so, just like Senate Democrats who used the nuclear option in 2013--don't complain if and when they do the same to you and your property.

This rezoning does not affect the business that is already there.  Nor does it prevent the business or the property being sold to continue doing that business.  The area never had the level of traffic to justify a C-3 zoning and certainly does not now.  The new zoning is more appropriate for both what is actually there now,  as well as what is desired for the future.   The intention is to INCREASE the value of his property along with  all the others, ergo there is no  'taking' of value.  Given the adjoining West End had a 753% increase in value over a 30 year period is pretty good evidence that the city has had success in the past.   

The eggs analogy is to say that if you only do that which everyone agrees with, nothing will ever change, because you will never get unanimity to change anything.  There were many that thought that removing vehicular traffic for the Liberty Bridge would be a mistake.  I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone now that it was a bad idea.

The vast majority of directly affected property owners either have no issue with it or support it.  Among the nearby property owners that are also affected but not as directly, there is very broad (essentially unanimous) support as well. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vicupstate said:

This rezoning does not affect the business that is already there.  Nor does it prevent the business or the property being sold to continue doing that business.  The area never had the level of traffic to justify a C-3 zoning and certainly does not now.  The new zoning is more appropriate for both what is actually there now,  as well as what is desired for the future.   The intention is to INCREASE the value of his property along with  all the others, ergo there is no  'taking' of value.  Given the adjoining West End had a 753% increase in value over a 30 year period is pretty good evidence that the city has had success in the past.   

The property owner is not necessarily the same as the business owner.  If OJ's moves out or closes down, then Dino has a building that was built specifically for a restaurant with a drive through that has a big asterisk next to it for any potential tenant.   "You might be able to operate a drive through here if the zoning commission approves it."  Also, Pendleton Street has been historically an industrial district, where C-3 was appropriate.  That being said, no doubt that it is changing quickly, and for what it's worth, I live a couple blocks away and very much support the zoning change.  I just do understand where Dino is coming from, and it is basically impossible to make everyone happy.  

On a side note, I wonder if this affects the halfway house at Calhoun and Pendleton at all.  They received a special exemption to operate in C-3, I don't believe RDV would allow it period?   Also, since they're not technically operating yet, not sure if the 6 month grace period would apply.       

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vicupstate said:

This rezoning does not affect the business that is already there.  Nor does it prevent the business or the property being sold to continue doing that business.  The area never had the level of traffic to justify a C-3 zoning and certainly does not now.  The new zoning is more appropriate for both what is actually there now,  as well as what is desired for the future.   The intention is to INCREASE the value of his property along with  all the others, ergo there is no  'taking' of value.  Given the adjoining West End had a 753% increase in value over a 30 year period is pretty good evidence that the city has had success in the past.   

The eggs analogy is to say that if you only do that which everyone agrees with, nothing will ever change, because you will never get unanimity to change anything.  There were many that thought that removing vehicular traffic for the Liberty Bridge would be a mistake.  I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone now that it was a bad idea.

The vast majority of directly affected property owners either have no issue with it or support it.  Among the nearby property owners that are also affected but not as directly, there is very broad (essentially unanimous) support as well. 

I know nothing of that particular rezoning. I'm not defending anybody. I'm speaking at the level of principle.

A hypothetical scenario: suppose there's an area of town with 100 property owners, and 99 of them agree to do something in common with their properties that's all-or-nothing. I.e., it must include all 100 properties or it's a no-go. What they want to do is highly desirable, but 1) it will limit everyone's use of his own property; and 2) it is not unavoidably necessary for the common good; that is, it's elective. Try as they might, they can't convince the 100th to agree. How do you solve the problem? (Is this actually a "problem" at all?) You offer to buy out the 100th--not via eminent domain, but via a good-faith private negotiation. The result will be the following:

1) Depending on the price the 100th accepts (or not), you'll discover just how important that property is to him.

2) Depending on the maximum price the 99 offer (or not), you'll discover just how important that common-use project is to the 99.

If the 100th bids the price up beyond what the 99 are willing to pay, then maybe the project wasn't so important to them after all. Maybe that property's been in his family for 200 years. Maybe there are  memories attached to the place that have no price tag. It's not the 99's to judge his reasons. But there's no reason not to try to come to terms on a purchase.

If the 100th sells out at some premium, then maybe the property wasn't so important to him after all. 

But at least, in both cases, everybody's "on board," because they've all freely agreed to a certain state of affairs, and nobody has forced anything on anybody. 

I realize that this may slow down the wheels of progress a bit, but I don't have a problem with that, because, in our current crony system, when those wheels start moving faster, the steering wheel is often in the hands of a well-connected fat cat, and people often get run over.

As for your reply to me on the eggs analogy, you're saying that the ends justify the means. I just reject that.

Go Tigers!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

If OJ's moves out or closes down, then Dino has a building that was built specifically for a restaurant with a drive through that has a big asterisk next to it for any potential tenant.   "You might be able to operate a drive through here if the zoning commission approves it."  Also, Pendleton Street has been historically an industrial district, where C-3 was appropriate. 

If OJ's left or closed, anyone else could go in and operate a restaurant in that location, with a drive-thru without getting any kind of approval, as long as they started operations within 6 months of when OJ's left.  A commercial tenant that doesn't intend to renew gives as much as a year's notice.  He would have time to find another operator.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Exile said:

I know nothing of that particular rezoning. I'm not defending anybody. I'm speaking at the level of principle.

A hypothetical scenario: suppose there's an area of town with 100 property owners, and 99 of them agree to do something in common with their properties that's all-or-nothing. I.e., it must include all 100 properties or it's a no-go. What they want to do is highly desirable, but 1) it will limit everyone's use of his own property; and 2) it is not unavoidably necessary for the common good; that is, it's elective. Try as they might, they can't convince the 100th to agree. How do you solve the problem? (Is this actually a "problem" at all?) You offer to buy out the 100th--not via eminent domain, but via a good-faith private negotiation. The result will be the following:

1) Depending on the price the 100th accepts (or not), you'll discover just how important that property is to him.

2) Depending on the maximum price the 99 offer (or not), you'll discover just how important that common-use project is to the 99.

If the 100th bids the price up beyond what the 99 are willing to pay, then maybe the project wasn't so important to them after all. Maybe that property's been in his family for 200 years. Maybe there are  memories attached to the place that have no price tag. It's not the 99's to judge his reasons. But there's no reason not to try to come to terms on a purchase.

If the 100th sells out at some premium, then maybe the property wasn't so important to him after all. 

But at least, in both cases, everybody's "on board," because they've all freely agreed to a certain state of affairs, and nobody has forced anything on anybody. 

I realize that this may slow down the wheels of progress a bit, but I don't have a problem with that, because, in our current crony system, when those wheels start moving faster, the steering wheel is often in the hands of a well-connected fat cat, and people often get run over.

As for your reply to me on the eggs analogy, you're saying that the ends justify the means. I just reject that.

Go Tigers!

 

It is called majority rule. I don't like a lot of things government does, but I have to accept that. What you are describing would allow anyone to hold up any project or at least dramatically increase the cost. How would a road ever get built, ever get widened?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, vicupstate said:

It is called majority rule. I don't like a lot of things government does, but I have to accept that. What you are describing would allow anyone to hold up any project or at least dramatically increase the cost. How would a road ever get built, ever get widened?  

Eminent domain. What else? I'm with the Bill of Rights. That's why I said "absolutely unavoidably necessary." Of course there are cases where there will have to be a taking. But not so that somebody else better connected to the seat of political power can profit from it, even if what results is a really nice or even noteworthy thing. The ends don't justify the means. Power is a test of one's virtue. There are actual people who are hurt by these kinds of things, regularly.

I think you'll find the Founders of this country on my side w/r/t how eminent domain is used. Well, maybe not the Hamiltonians. And while the Founders never contemplated this, I think it's very arguable that zoning can be used as a "taking."

But I'm really not trying to start or keep an argument going. I just think that, in our zeal to see the city dazzle (which I share), we forget, or at least gloss over, the fact that, sometimes, beautiful things come into being at least partially unjustly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of Eminent Domain inherently means someone  is not getting  their way  because they are surrendering property that did not want to sell.  What is 'necessary' is subjective . Regardless, ED is not involved here. 

Zoning changes CAN certainly be considered a taking but I do not think that a good case for that can be made here. A nearly identical rezoning literally on the same street has certainly NOT impeded development as occupancy and renovations have increased in the period since, and pretty dramatically.   No one is taking anyone property and no existing business is being impacted. By eliminating uses that could be detrimental to the resurgent residential areas, there is a stronger incentive to continue that, and to provide commercial uses that will serve that growing population.   He is not losing value and therefore nothing has been taken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

The use of Eminent Domain inherently means someone  is not getting  their way  because they are surrendering property that did not want to sell.  What is 'necessary' is subjective . Regardless, ED is not involved here. 

Zoning changes CAN certainly be considered a taking but I do not think that a good case for that can be made here. A nearly identical rezoning literally on the same street has certainly NOT impeded development as occupancy and renovations have increased in the period since, and pretty dramatically.   No one is taking anyone property and no existing business is being impacted. By eliminating uses that could be detrimental to the resurgent residential areas, there is a stronger incentive to continue that, and to provide commercial uses that will serve that growing population.   He is not losing value and therefore nothing has been taken. 

My last word, and then have at it.

1) To repeat: I'm not commenting on the current Dino's situation, or any other particular instance, for that matter. I've been responding to your "break a few eggs" comment, to which I still take great exception, for the reasons I've noted.

2) Saying that the determination of what is necessary is "subjective" isn't helpful. It's not an argument for (or against) anything, and in fact, in the fairly narrow range of circumstances that I've been talking about, it's mistaken. Whether a taking benefits one person at the expense of another is not a subjective determination. The whole point of ED ... er ... eminent domain ... is to benefit everyone, without particularly benefitting anyone (or a few). Whether property is being transferred into the hands of people who stand to gain financially from the exercise of eminent domain is not a subjective thing, and it's not rare (in the world). I'm talking about intent here. I'm not addressing the likelihood that, e.g., because of proximity, some people might benefit more than others. That's just real estate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The City is certifying the old Mountain View Orchids building as "Abandoned". The certification will allow a taxpayer to provide a "Notice of Intent to Rehabilitate".  The taxpayer will have to spend over $250k on the property (because it's in the City) to be eligible for the tax incentives provided by the designation. 66% of the property has to be unused for 5 years for the designation to be applied.

image.png.76f36524b9426fd14a8a760cdd01ae9c.png

The same certification is happening to the strip mall building at the intersection of E. Washington and Cleveirvine.

image.png.ab849f20074765e310c677c1a6369742.png

https://www.greenvillesc.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/5823?fileID=24648

https://www.greenvillesc.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/5824?fileID=24649

On 12/21/2018 at 10:48 AM, vicupstate said:

Planning Commission voted in favor of the zoning changes 4-2. It now goes to City Council next month.  

Lillian Brock Fleming and Mayor White are in support, I do not know about the others. 

Vic, I didn't see the rezoning listed as an item on the Agenda for this month's City Council meeting. Do you have any other information on where this stands?

Edited by Joey_Blackdogg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Vic, I didn't see the rezoning listed as an item on the Agenda for this month's City Council meeting. Do you have any other information on where this stands?

It will go for First Reading at the Jan. 28 meeting. Second Reading on Feb. 11.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rezoning passed on First Reading by 6 to 0.  West End Court apartments will likely be amended to be RDV instead of Residential in the Second Reading version.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2018 at 10:12 AM, vicupstate said:

Building permits issued for three of the units at 12 S. Calhoun St.   

Two more building permits issued. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2019 at 5:10 AM, vicupstate said:

The rezoning passed on First Reading by 6 to 0.  West End Court apartments will likely be amended to be RDV instead of Residential in the Second Reading version.

Unanimously approved on 2nd Reading with the above mentioned revision.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 Easley Bridge Rd. is seeking a rezoning from RM-2 to RDV. Neighborhood Meeting on May 9 from 6-7pm atSterling Gym, 113 Minus St.  Tax Id: 

0077000300400

The .25 acre parcel currently has a bungelow house.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.