Camden County sues Union Carbide

Gordon Jackson, The Brunswick News, Ga.
·2 min read

Jul. 29—The Camden County Commission is suing Union Carbide over its decision last week to void a contract to sell a 4,000-acre tract of land for a planned spaceport.

The company's decision was the result of a referendum in March where 72% of Camden County voters who showed up to the polls said they didn't want the county to spend any more money on the spaceport project after more than $11 million had been spent on the project.

County officials are challenging the validity of the referendum in the Georgia Supreme Court.

In its lawsuit, county officials said Union Carbide declined to have "good faith discussions" to resolve any claimed issues or concerns the company said it had with the contract or with the timing of the closing.

"Camden County has no intention of allowing Union Carbide to repudiate the contract, which will cause the county the loss of the spaceport project as well as an enormous financial loss in excess of $11 million," county officials said in a statement. "The county has an obligation to the residents and taxpayers to protect the investment in the project and to see the project through to its completion."

The Federal Aviation Administration approved a site operator's license earlier this year to allow for the construction of a commercial space launch site and offer the site to commercial operators for liquid-fueled, small-lift orbital and suborbital launch vehicles. But that license was contingent upon the county closing on the deal with Union Carbide.

"Despite the good faith efforts of the county, Union Carbide unilaterally declared the county's contract void, which it claimed to be due to a recent referendum against the spaceport project," according to county officials. "The referendum remains on appeal with the Georgia Supreme Court, and the county is very confident that it will prevail. Union Carbide refused to even await the ruling of the Supreme Court, but instead abruptly declared the contract over and at the same time keep the monies the county has already paid."

County officials believe Union Carbide's decision "had nothing to do with the referendum" but was done to make more money on the property than the county agreed to pay.

"That is not a legitimate reason for repudiating a contract," according to the statement. "Assuming Union Carbide does not change its position on the contract, the county will vigorously seek to obtain relief from the court and to recover the attorneys' fees spent to enforce the contract."