TOWN ABANDONS MAIN STREET …

DISAPPOINTING FOR ALL, SAYS WHO?

September 26, 2023

In January 2023, an idea arose about developing a “main street” in Irmo on someone else’s property. Not a bad idea, if right, location, location, location, three real estate words that make or break an idea, a development, a sale.

Ideas do have to be sold, unless there are great ideas that “everyone” can get on board with. Again, the main street idea was good, location not so good.

An article in a local paper titled “Town abandons main street, disappointing for all”, in my mind expressed a smugness, arrogant touch by the unknown writer, and I have heard and know it did with others as well. This is why I write this article. It was stated “it’s a huge loss for the residents and for those that could have profited nicely from the Town of Irmo’s pursuit of an entertainment area ‘main street’. Due to public opposition from nearby landowners this quest has been abandoned.”

First let me address “huge loss for residents”. Which residents, the ones that live there or the ones that live elsewhere (not there)? “Could have profited nicely”, really, could have?, not would have?, and how is it profit if you have to spend those dollars buying another property at a most likely cost, and not be together as family and community, which also has a value. Very assumptive statement that doesn’t consider what the property owners consider valuable. 

“Public opposition from nearby landowners”, aren’t they the residents, or not the ones the author was referring to?

One quick jab at Mayor Walker. If it is abandoned as the author stated, and no activity on Council agenda since then by other council members to move forward, why does Council need a resolution, or vote on one that says Council will no longer continue this issue, or a resolution that Council not hire a real estate acquisition firm to acquire property that Council has not approved, voted on, contracted with, hired anyone, or made any effort whatsoever to hire a real estate acquisition firm. Neither resolution was needed. It is called political grand standing, posturing, pandering, politicking from the podium, which is disgraceful. But yes, you’re up for election and you got an opponent with lots of financial support, chamber member support, and voter support, plus the anti-Barry voters. It is biblical, what we sow is what we reap. Anyway, back to the subject.

Infrastructure improvements is allowed with ARPA funds, “creating a commercial district” I don’t actually believe does, but could be wrong. My best guess it’s a 100% stretch of the rules. But then again, how does that apply to elected officials wanting to spend money. But the author can prove me wrong, if so decides. I’m always available.

Some town leaders saw an opportunity, another saw another opportunity, for their own agenda, but then again both sides had an agenda. It was called the Mayor’s Race of 2023.

“Vacant, uninhabited parcels of land”, so this land was vacant and uninhabited??? What does that mean, is there a difference between vacant and uninhabited? Don’t really care, but is was owned by people, family, to me that is the point being missed. And those people “have lost tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.”? “Owners have argued”, really, argued, or just stated “their property has been handed down from generation to generation and that they are hoping to reach some sort of generational wealth by hanging on to it.” Isn’t that what is the definition of investing? Hanging onto something for future value increases, and isn’t real estate considered one of the safest investments compared to stocks, bonds, etc. *“could turn into hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of years … “ by keeping land as well.*

“The Town was willing to offer well above appraised values for the properties”, really?, they were?, how is that known?, and how is it assumed that all of Council or majority of Council would agree to pay ‘well above appraised values’ with mine and other resident’s “tax dollars”. When the idea couldn’t get out of the gate, because one of them was fighting the idea. Maybe because he wasn’t getting credit, or didn’t like the method, doesn’t matter. We don’t know, and it shouldn’t be assumed above appraised values would be paid by majority of Council. Again very assumptive statement.

Let’s just say those numbers $150,000 invested for 25 years would be $700,000 if left untouched, how could it be left untouched if those property owners have to go elsewhere and buy another property to live in. At today’s unnormally high prices, and not including moving costs, any mortgage payoffs on the property itself. And at our age, who really wants to move? 

“That land has no value to any investor but the Town”? No value, to any investor? What about the current property owner’s investment value? “Any investor but the town”, but the Town is the investor? When do towns become speculators, investors in possible current developments?

 “Town could even work out a lease option or a way to share the profits from the land as it is sold to developers”? In another article, it was stated that the profits from the sale of the land along with ARPA funds etc. would go toward the development of this main street project so it wouldn’t be a cost to any taxpayer in town. So how can the profits be shared with the property owners and be used to offset the cost of the development? This can truly only happen if you’re paying dirt scratch to the property owners, not paying above appraised value. Since when can developers afford to buy land from a middle man “the town” who paid above appraisal values and has to have enough profit to give to the property owners and to pay for the development of all the infrastructure? Why not let the developer buy the land directly from the property owners, oh yeah they wouldn’t, couldn’t, numbers wouldn’t work, need taxpayer dollars to assure developers ability to make a profit.

The article’s author said “and all the concerned parties were well coached in their comments to the Council in saying that they were not interested in selling, and to take their name off the list”. So, you have to be coached, to say you are not interested, or does the author think the property owners couldn’t express that themselves. Again very arrogant and smug, in my opinion.

The article continued to state “and only one of the owners had bothered to approach the Town Council prior to things getting out of hand”. How many property owners had any Council member, Mayor included, “bothered to approach”? Other residents also said “they didn’t want a main street”. Yeah, so some residents were against it. Big deal, so what. Again, the idea at this location was not such a great idea, or a “win, win” as some stated it to be.

The train didn’t leave the station, it never arrived at the station in the first place.

According to the mayor he was for the idea, and with or without a useless non-binding resolution it can always be brought back up. Resolutions don’t prevent any council member from putting any item on any agenda at any date, or any future council member five ten years from then.

“Hope for these landowners”, really, their hope from what I can read, well coached or not, in between the lines or not, and anybody with a little bit of common sense, should know they just want to be left alone and keep their property as they have for generations. 

As far as “what the condition the economy will be” in the future should be the same as your 25 year investment prediction was paragraphs above. I don’t think the future economic conditions have changed half way through your article.

Yes, changes do come. Hopefully, a new mayor, and another news source is now here. SinceTruthMatters.com