CPW outlines options for Grace St. land after rezoning bid fails

What now?

It’s a question being bandied about by many following Greenwood City Council’s decision last Monday not to rezone 13.5 acres at 1217 Grace St., the would-be location of the Grace Street Park.

Greenwood CPW, which owns 54 acres at the site, was seeking to have the 13.5-acre plot rezoned to general commercial, with plans to sell it. CPW board members and manager Steve Reeves even came to Monday’s well-attended public hearing with a new proposal.

CPW said that, if council voted to rezone the 13.5-acre tract, it would deed the other 40.5 acres to the City of Greenwood to be designated for greenspace in perpetuity.

By doing this, CPW board members Henry Watts and Gene Hancock contended it would allow the utility provider to net some money on the land and overcome legal opinions it has received regarding the legality of giving away such a large portion of land without fair compensation.

However, the large crowd in attendance Monday would have none of it, as more than a dozen residents and an entire Girl Scout troop spoke out in opposition of the rezoning and dismissed CPW’s proposed compromise.

In the end, city council voted 4-0 against rezoning, with councilmen Johnny Williams and Herbert Vaughn abstaining.

While nothing is set in stone, CPW laid out its options for the land late last week.

“Well, one option is to sell it as-is,” said Watts, the CPW board chairman. “Or, we could just do nothing with it. We’ll have an executive session at our next board meeting and discuss our options.”

The 54 acres, which was for years the home of a water plant, is zoned for medium-density residential. Hancock said selling it as such is now a very real option.

“It could be developed for residential,” Hancock said. “You could put 250 homes on it. We could just sell it outright as-is. We don’t need anyone’s permission to do that.”

Watts said he was disappointed CPW’s latest offer, which would have preserved 40.5 acres of greenspace, was tossed aside so feverishly at last Monday’s council meeting.

“I was very disappointed,” Watts said. “That was not in the spirit of compromise. That’s what this is going to take, is compromise. We’ve said it before: We can’t give the land away. Our (2008 budget) is $1.7 million in the red, and we could be facing rate increases. How can I justify giving away that much real estate with our rate-payers when we are facing (a budget crunch)?

“People have been calling me and threatening to not re-elect me if we don’t reconsider. Look, my life will go on, re-elected or not. I have to do what I know is right.”

Reeves wondered aloud whether compromise is even an option any longer.

“I keep hearing the term 'compromise,’” Reeves said. “I guess I’m not even sure if that word means anything anymore. Our board has approached this from several different angles, none of which have been accepted. Is that compromise?”

Reeves said he entered Monday’s meeting under the impression that park supporters would be at least moderately receptive in terms of receiving information about CPW’s new proposal. He also said any commercial development that would have entered the 13.5 acres -- had it been rezoned -- would have been contractually bound to be “park friendly.”

“That could have been accomplished through restrictions in the deed,” Reeves said. “It could have included guidelines on construction methodology, and it would have included landscaping that would be complementary to any potential park.”

Another possible compromise is CPW’s still-standing offer of deeding the entire 54 acres to Greenwood County for use as a park in return for the county funding the construction of $4 million in water lines to rural areas -- lines that would be operated by CPW.

However, county council has never taken up that issue in a public meeting.

“That would be the cleanest way to get this done,” Hancock said. “We have to get something for that property, legally. It’s a high-value property, and we’ve been offered $4.4 million for it.

“But I want to see a park there. There just has to be some kind of compromise.”

About the issue

The Grace Street land in question was acquired from resident Belle Yoe in the early 20th century through eminent domain by the City of Greenwood, which deeded it to CPW years later.

Known for her eccentricity, Yoe reportedly refused to accept payment for the land as protest. The money was placed in a fund for her.

Some, including resident Roger Stevenson at last Monday’s meeting, have questioned the legality of selling for profit a piece of land that was acquired through eminent domain for public use.

Through the years, the land served a number of purposes, most prominently for its use as a water plant site. It also housed a municipal golf course some years ago.

The issue of the land becoming a park has actually been ongoing for nearly eight years, with CPW for many years offering the land to the city as a donation.

However, with issues of liability hanging over it, the deal laid dormant.

In 2007, a new idea arose, one in which CPW would deed the land to the city, which would then deed it to Greenwood County. However, the issues of liability and upkeep again arose.

It was also last summer that the issue of legality came into the forefront, with CPW saying it could not legally give away the land.

So, in July 2007, the CPW board voted, 2-1, to sell the land. Mike Monaghan cast the dissenting vote.

After considerable public outcry, a three-party public meeting was called including the CPW board, Greenwood City Council and Greenwood County Council.

At that meeting, county council voted to accept the land and all the responsibility, liability and upkeep that went with it if CPW would deed it to the county, through the city, as a donation.

However, it was a proposal that was not acted upon, as the commissioners again said they could not give away the land for free.