Staff Writer
EASLEY - Pickens County Council favors growth, favors business, but doesn't favor corporate welfare, said Chairman G. Neil Smith in an exclusive interview with The Easley Progress and The Pickens Sentinel.
Whether the county would support creating a special tax district to help spur infrastructure improvements surrounding the center relied heavily on the answer to one big question:
"'Is it going to be a Wal-Mart?'" Smith said.
"And if it's going to be a Wal-Mart, then I don't think our council wants to be on the record as giving incentives to one of the major corporate giants in this country."
Pickens County's position is that big box retailers and many others want to locate where the most people are.
"If Wal-Mart wants to come there, we're not against them. We're just saying we don't want to give them any extra incentives, because they don't need them," Smith said.
And the same goes for Target.
"I would love it to be a Target because that's an add-on. That's breaking that 'We've got to go to Greenville or Anderson.'" Smith said. "We would finally get something.
"But the same issue applies to Target that applies to Wal-Mart: You don't need to be giving incentives to retailers," Smith said.
The following is excerpts from the interview:
Q- How serious is council about securing funds for infrastructure improvements surrounding the Saco Lowell area?
"The county met and talked about coming up with an overall plan. We basically stated that we thought that the (U.S.) 123 corridor was our No. 1 project. And at that time, we basically stated that we felt like we needed to work on that 123, 153, Prince Perry area.
"We emphasized our position to GPATS - that is the Greenville Pickens Area Transportation Study - and then the newest plan, the next cycle that starts this year, that extension of 153 was put in there. We had not gotten any money previously from them, other than some miscellaneous grant money. But it was like a $12-13 million approval for 153 to be extended over the rail road track and then to connect to Prince Perry Road ... it could go all the way up to Saluda Dam ... the curl-around the Saco Lowell project and so forth - that got approved ... in December.
"I think it's supposed to start in ... 2011. But now, that's the problem with most of these fundings. What you're deciding today is three years down the road. You can't move it up. I tell people all the time, 'Don't get frustrated on that because if you continue to argue all you've done is put another year down.'
"That's why you've got to have that long-term vision. That was the county's push and (we) got that through GPATS. Prince Perry bridge is a project that qualifies under the C-fund. And at the time, we asked that that money be paid for by C-funds and even recommended that we would give the money up front to be paid back by C-fund in order to get it done earlier.
"To my knowledge, C-fund has not committed more than - it was not enough to do the project. But yet they're still splitting the money up among the cities. Whether the C-fund committee is treating that as being something that the City of Easley is going to have to do, I don't know because the city of Easley is getting an allocation.
Q- Have the county and Easley discussed pooling the separate allocations to apply them jointly to the Prince Perry bridge project?
"The cities are somewhat aggravated with the county because, I always hear, 'They're messing with our money.'
"I'm just saying in this situation, if Prince Perry bridge is that important to Easley, they should be taking their money and putting it there. I don't support splitting the money up, because that's like having three kids and asking them to make good business decisions.
"The question is, 'Do I really view them sometimes as kids? Yes. Because what you'll find is they don't spend the money for what they say is their top project, but then come back and say, 'This is what we wanted to do.' That was basically what was occurring with wanting us to say, 'Let's take the county and school tax to pay for Prince Perry bridge' and also raising 123 and putting in the railroad crossing.'
"Personally, I think Prince Perry bridge could be fixed with available funds, 153 could be fixed in three years and that addresses, in my mind, that makes that property a substantial piece of property.
"The one issue that has not been addressed is 'Does the county support raising 123 (by) 7 or 8 feet in order to make the bridge compliant with the developer's needs?' and 'Do we support raising the 123 to put a railroad grade crossing at the center of that property?'
"The answer is 'no.' We do not support having a grade crossing right in the center of the property for our people to drive across to go to a Wal-Mart.
"It's scary. First of all, we don't need the railroad crossing if you've got 153 curling across and Prince Perry. The other thing is, that's the main artery for our people to come into the county. And to put a red light and turn lanes for a railroad crossing that we'd be funneling our people across - it's scary enough to watch our people drive across the traffic to go to Wal-Mart now, much less cross a railroad track. "
Q- Haven't the developer and Easley leaders said that the railroad is requiring U.S. 123 be raised?
"The answer is 'yes' and 'no.'
"In order to get the bridge put in, they have to have a certain height and that is correct. So to replace that bridge you do have to raise that. But you don't have to push the bridge to the highway side.
"You can push more of the raising of the road to the other side which is what the developer doesn't want because that takes off a corner of that property being a top prospect. So if I'm choosing between raising 123 (by) 7 feet or raising Prince Perry Road 7 feet, there's no question that we ought to raise Prince Perry Road. And then the other thing, there's nothing that says we can't redesign that interchange.
"Of course the other thing, the railroad is also saying they needed the space for three tracks: one for their expansion and one for high-speed rail ... We don't have a problem going the other way, but this requirement (is) a bargaining chip they're throwing out there. There's one track there, they're basically saying they want a track on out side, the south side which is the road side, and one on the north side.
"And I've sat there saying 'Excuse me, you're saying you would build a line on that side?' Because if you go on down the road and think about what they've got to build up, it's not a reasonable request. But that fits in with where our county engineer said we wouldn't have to raise it 7 feet, we could get by with 3 feet.
"The thing is, we're opposed to the (at-grade) railroad crossing. And we've been told that any movement or closing of a railroad crossing has to get county approval. So that's going to be one of the other issues: 'Are they planning to close the other one and move it up?' Because it is my understanding that the railroad has to get our approval to do that.
"If that means moving it up to the center of that property to have an at-grade crossing for a major shopping center, our position has been 'no.' That was a big stumbling block the whole time. You don't need it. You come across the railroad and you've got access on both ends. You've got it from Saco Lowell Road ... you've got it from Prince Perry - like what do you need. You don't need that railroad crossing.
"That's what I keep saying. We've got to talk about the issues versus 'Is the county in favor of the project or not?' and when you look at it, it's not a bad request. If I personally voted, I'd build that bridge. But I would build it to the standards that are best for the transportation system, not the best for that developer's requirement on that corner lot.
"I don't think that's so negative to that developer because all of the sudden, that piece of property is going to be a much more valuable piece of property because you're surrounded with major roads."
Q- What sentiment is there among council members about the proposed Easley Town Center shopping development?
"It's my understanding that the council, they are pro-growth. They are wanting business and they want to promote it and they want to promote that site - council as a whole. But they don't want to be perceived as giving corporate welfare to businesses that would be there anyway.
"When I say that, the majority of the people that talk to me on the street are wanting to have a very nice development. Something comparable to a Haywood Mall or something that would be similar to a Cherrydale; something along those lines. I think we are fine with that. And I think that's where the criticism that we got was people (perceived) that we were slowing that down.
"But we really weren't because a top-notch developer that was putting in some project like that would love to get 153 and Prince Perry bridge fixed.
"The real issue comes down to, 'Is it going to be a Wal-Mart?' And if it's going to be a Wal-Mart, then I don't think our council wants to be on the record as giving incentives to one of the major corporate giants in this country. Their whole strategy is to locate their stores close to the people and we (already) have one.
"So, if we're moving that one from one site to another site, we don't see that as a gain. Especially after all the money that's been spent on the other one. Taxpayers' dollars. But if Wal-Mart wants to come there, we're not against them. We're just saying we don't want to give them any extra incentives, because they don't need them.
Q- What if Target were going in that location or nearby?
"I would love it to be a Target because that's an add-on. That's breaking that 'We've got to go to Greenville or Anderson.' We would finally get something.
"But the same issue applies to Target that applies to Wal-Mart: You don't need to be giving incentives to retailers. And then where do you draw the line?
"It's easy to talk about incentives when it comes to an industrial park and that type of thing. But you really start struggling when you start getting into the retail and things like that ..."
Reach Ginny Johnson at 855-0355 or gjohnson@theeasleyprogress.com.
Post a Comment
