At public meeting, more pushback on project to create a downtown in Irmo

Posted 1/11/23

Residents in an area of Irmo targeted to become a new downtown continued to push back against the project during a recent public meeting.

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Subscribe to continue reading. Already a subscriber? Sign in

Get 50% of all subscriptions for a limited time. Subscribe today.

You can cancel anytime.
 

Please log in to continue

Log in

At public meeting, more pushback on project to create a downtown in Irmo

Posted

Residents in an area of Irmo targeted to become a new downtown continued to push back against the project during a recent public meeting.

On Jan. 8, Town Council held a special information session at Macedonia Baptist Church about the plan to turn what is currently a dirt road near Irmo Community Park into a new city center. Irmo presently lacks a proper downtown area.

In December, council approved the purchase of 1.82 acres of land for the project and voted to hire an acquisition firm that could potentially help it acquire more land. Several residents of the predominantly Black area near the park showed up at that meeting to voice their opposition.

During the Jan. 8 meeting, which drew about 60 people late on a Sunday afternoon, Mayor Barry Walker reported the town has thus far managed to purchase one of 12 parcels it has targeted for the project.

Council member Bill Danielson, who was quoted in a Post and Courier Columbia article that broke news about the potential development, offered an apology, telling the crowd, “I know it’s my fault” in regard to how the proposal has been handled.

A consistent refrain among those opposing the project is that they weren’t informed before the December vote.

The Studemeyer Law Firm’s Bradley Studemeyer addressed the crowd at the information session about the town's possible use of eminent domain to try to force out residents and buy their property for fair market value, a fear among residents.

The attorney pointed to a 2006 amendment to the state constitution, ratified by voters, that makes this impossible.

“‘Private property shall not be condemned by eminent domain for any purpose or benefit including but not limited to the purpose or benefit of economic development,’” he recited.

“How real is that? Well, that's the last time 86% of South Carolinians agree that the sky was blue? 86% of South Carolinians agreed that the government can't take your land because they think they can make more money.”

Walker said council will continue to assess the proposed development and determine how it wants to handle it.

Several of the 27 or so residents who spoke at the meeting proposed using a different location near Irmo Town Park, within walking distance of Town Hall, for the project.

William Bowman, a parcel owner, was the first of the meeting to propose the property at Carlisle Street and Lexington Avenue as an option, arguing that this land already has the infrastructure in place.

Bowman has been a prominent voice since the December vote, admonishing council for the “very poor job” they did rolling out this proposal, asserting that it created a trust issue between the town and the community.

Asked why that land was not selected, Danielson said, “The Town Park is not large enough to support the budget of inside and outside entertainment and venues that want to go there. The Community Park is much larger”

Also mentioned by Walker at the meeting was the possibility of relocating Town Hall to the proposed downtown development, moving it to what he called a more accessible location along Church Street from its current location on Woodrow Street.

Former Irmo mayor Hardy King contended that if any other commercial business was attempting to rezone this land from residential to commercial that it would probably be denied.

“Don’t want to pave the dirt road till you buy it,” said resident Marion Boyde Jr., a landowner, in regard to Moseley Avenue, the dirt road that would become the proposed “Main Street”.

Another resident, Dan Burke, mentioned that this proposed project is “all about revenue and not the community,” adding, “If it was for the community you would involve them.”

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here