Judge to decide whether to dismiss lawsuit challenging Aiken's Project Pascalis

Sep. 19—A judge from Conway will decide within the next few weeks if the fact that Project Pascalis has ended should also end the lawsuit filed challenging the actions taken by the city of Aiken and others on the project.

Alex Hyman, a judge in South Carolina's 15th Judicial Circuit, said at a hearing held Tuesday afternoon he would take the city of Aiken's motion asking the court to dismiss the case under advisement before making a ruling.

South Carolina's 15th Judicial Circuit includes Horry and Georgetown counties.

Project Pascalis was a $75 million development project focused on Aiken's downtown. Preliminary plans included the demolition of the Hotel Aiken and Beckman building and their replacement by a modern hotel.

The plans also included demolishing several buildings between Bee Lane and Newberry Street to make way for an apartment complex and parking deck and the conversion of a city-owned building into a conference center.

The preferred developer of the project, RPM Development Partners, sent the city a notice Sept. 14, 2022 that it was withdrawing from the project. The Aiken Municipal Development Commission voted Sept. 30, 2022 to stop the project.

The Aiken City Council since withdrew the conveyance of part of Newberry Street to the developer and voted to abolish the Municipal Development Commission. And the Aiken Design Review Board voted to rescind permission it granted to demolish the hotel.

But, before the project ended, David Blake, Luis Rinaldini and several others filed a lawsuit through attorney Andrew Gowder and others July 5, 2022 challenging the city's actions on the project. Specifically, they asked for a declaration that the city had violated several state laws and the state's Freedom of Information Act on the project.

The city's attorney, Daniel Plyler, argued in a motion filed July 21 that the end of Project Pascalis made the lawsuit moot. In a reply brief filed Monday, Gowder argued that a controversy still existed and the case should continue onward.

Hyman heard both arguments at a hearing Tuesday in a second-floor courtroom of the Aiken County Judicial Center.

Plyler's argument centered on a case previously decided by the South Carolina Supreme Court: Croft v. Summerville.

In that case, several residents of Summerville and public interest groups sued the town alleging it had violated its own ordinances and the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act regarding an economic development project.

The developer withdrew from the project before it could come to fruition. And the court ruled the developer's withdrawal made the case moot.

"The reason we cited the Croft case and relied on it quite heavily is it's on all fours with this particular matter," Plyler said.

He added the same plaintiff's counsels, Gowder and others, represented the plaintiffs in the Croft case and made the same kind of arguments.

Plyler argued the city's position in Blake v. Aiken was stronger than Summerville's was in Croft.

"That's exactly the situation we have here except with a little extra," Plyler said.

He said in Croft the developer had withdrawn as had RPM in Blake v. Aiken. But, he added the city council and two of its boards had also voted to end Project Pascalis which did not happen in Croft.

Gowder argued three points: summary judgment isn't appropriate at this stage of the case, that the case isn't moot and, if the case was moot, the public interest and to provide guidance to other cities should compel the court to deny the city's motion.

He argued motions like the city's are normally made after discovery and discovery has barely begun in this case.

Gowder also argued the case wasn't moot because the allegations in the 121-page complaint haven't been proven or disproven yet. He said the ending of Pascalis was irrelevant as the issues of the alleged violations still remained to be proven.

Hyman then said he would take the case under advisement before making a ruling.

Hyman also quashed a subpoena issued for Aiken attorney Ray Massey in the case.

Gowder added he would issue a new subpoena for Massey. He added he would work with Massey's attorneys to narrow the documents requested in the subpoena.