Judge rules against mayor, Georgetown in condo suit

 

Published on 5/21/2009

* Willowbank condo land reverts to general commercial zoning after judge's ruling

By Tommy Howard

thoward@gtowntimes.com

Judge J. Michael Baxley on Tuesday signed an order overturning a deciding vote cast by Mayor Lynn Wood Wilson that approved a controversial development project.

The Willowbank condominium project on Church Street in Georgetown was approved on Oct. 12, 2006.

In a previous vote, Wilson recused himself saying he had a conflict. At that October 2006 meeting of City Council, however, Wilson said he did not have a conflict.

Tuesday afternoon, Wilson told the Georgetown Times in an exclusive interview, "I know in my heart I did nothing wrong."

Conflict

Baxley wrote in his order that Wilson was a compensated agent of Prudential Source One Properties.

That is one of the key decisions the Circuit Court judge made in a lawsuit originally brought by three members of Georgetown City Council and eight people who live near the proposed condominium project.

Because Wilson was a real estate agent at the time, Baxley said, "The Court finds that Defendant Wilson conferred an economic benefit on said parties by voting to rezone Jasdip's property. This is particularly true in light of the commission sharing arrangement he had entered into with two other agents. This finding is buttressed by the Mayor's decision to abstain from the first reading of the ordinance."

Also, the zoning of the property from general commercial to planned development was overturned, and reverted back to the GC designation.

If the developer wants to try again, that's OK, but the process will have to start over.

Baxley denied the plaintiffs' motion for costs of the action.

There were no fines or other monetary damages awarded in the case.

Vote overturned

Holly Wall, attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Times in a telephone interview from New Jersey that she knew of the judge's decision for about a week, but couldn't say anything.

When Baxley signed the order Tuesday, she said, "he released the order of silence."

In the order for the plaintiffs, Wall said, Baxley ruled that Wilson's "vote on second reading was illegal, that he had an economic interest in Jasdip and the Steele Team."

Jasdip was the proposed developer -- now defunct -- and Drew Steele is a real estate agent who entered into a commission-sharing arrangement with Wilson and another agent.

"The vote he cast was invalid," Wall said, "so the entire ordinance was determined as void."

What's it mean?

When asked what the judge's ruling means for the parties in the lawsuit, Wall said, "The issue was not the condos. The issue was that the Mayor's vote was illegal."

He recused himself at first reading of the ordinance to rezone the property, Wall said, and then before the second vote he read a letter stating he did not have a business interest in the condos. Wilson voted to approve the ordinance rezoning the property from General Commercial to Planned Development.

"But, the court found that later the same day, he [Wilson] called a third party. He said Prudential would be representing the condominiums, and he was part of the Steele Team," Wall said.

"We proved everything we said we were going to prove two and one-half years ago," she added.

Sets precedent

"This is actually a precedent-setting case," Wall said. "We can't find where anybody has addressed this issue."

She noted that all over the state, there are real estate agents who serve on various governmental entities -- councils and various boards and commissions.

"When their company is representing a buyer, is there a conflict?" Wall asked.

She said the State Ethics Commission will have to issue a ruling on the issue of when a real estate agent would have to "recuse" himself, or not vote on an issue.

Previous actions

In April, Baxley ruled that the three council members who were plaintiffs could not be parties to the lawsuit and removed their names.

Jack Scoville, Peggy Wayne and Paige Sawyer had said at the beginning of the lawsuit that they didn't believe the mayor's vote was valid. The suit continued without them.

Also, since Jasdip is out of business that firm's lender -- Milimac Holdings LLC -- joined the suit. That company filed a counterclaim against the city for more than $2 million, but later withdrew that action.

Milimac still wants to develop the property and will go through the city's Planning Department to do that.

Mayor's comments

Wilson first told The Times that the judge signed the order early Tuesday afternoon.

Following a city council budget workshop, he said, "I am disappointed and really disheartened in the court's ruling.

"I believe I acted prudently in seeking the input of the State Ethics Commission before the first vote. I acted in good faith."

"I should have -- and will in the future -- sought a written opinion."

Director Herbert Hayden Jr. of the Ethics Commission said in a deposition he remembered talking with Wilson about the issue, but couldn't recall specific details. He said, however, that based on what Wilson related to him he probably would have said it would be OK for Wilson to participate in the vote.

On a positive side, Wilson said Tuesday, "I'm relieved the controversy is over. I hope that [Milimac's] new plan will bring value to Georgetown."

The people who filed the lawsuit are still his friends, Wilson continued.

"I'm sorry this thing happened. I will apologize to the city. I did what I thought was right for the city."

"I know in my heart I did nothing wrong," Wilson said.

He thanked people who called and wrote him offering their support and their prayers.

With the judge's ruling, he said, he hopes the controversy will be put to rest.

"We've got a city to run. I hope we will not be sidetracked by these small issues."

As for any appeal of the order, Wilson said he wants to think about it and pray about it.

It may be an option, but he wants to get council's input on whether to appeal.

"I'm not going to make that decision today," he said.

*

To see the complete text of the 16-page order, click here [pdf download]

That's a good question. Yet he still runs for Mayor. Where is the justice in that?

Posted by on 5/28/2009


Isn't the use of an elected position as a direct promotion of monetary self interest not only unethical, but also illegal?

Posted by on 5/28/2009


Have you considered that Wilson didn't tell Hayden the truth to begin with? No truth results in no valid advice.

Posted by Lawyer on 5/21/2009


"Director Herbert Hayden Jr. of the Ethics Commission said in a deposition he remembered talking with Wilson about the issue, but couldn't recall specific details. He said, however, that based on what Wilson related to him he probably would have said it would be OK for Wilson to participate in the vote." I don't understand. If the Director of the Ethics Commission told him it was okay, should that man not hold some responsability in this situation too?

Posted by Confused on 5/21/2009


Are you claiming judicial bias? Why do you raise these "facts", if they are actually factual? You seem to want us to think this was all politics. Did you read the Order? Can you point to error in the Order?

Posted by Lawyer on 5/20/2009


Michael Baxley, the judge in the case, is campaigning hard for an appointment by President Obama to a federal judgeship. Jack Scoville, the instigator of the case, is a long time member of the South Carolina Democratic Party Executive Committee.

Posted by on 5/20/2009


I just read the order. The judge says Lynn Wood lied at least three times about his relationship with the developer and Prudential. Lynn Wood says he did nothing wrong. He must be in denial or doesn't know what wrong means.

Posted by Voter on 5/20/2009


The mayor said he wants to get council's input on whether to appeal????? He is going to ask the people who sued him and won if he should appeal their victory?? That man ain't too bright, is he?

Posted by on 5/20/2009


Leave a Response

Notice about comments:
Gtowntimes.com is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Gtowntimes.com cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not gtowntimes.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here.

Post a Comment





Latest Polls

What do you think should happen to the annual Harborwalk Festival?
  • It should remain at the end of June on Front Street
  • It should be moved to a different month but remain on Front Street
  • It should be moved to a different month and move to East Bay Park
  • It should be canceled


Advertisement