Rock Hill leaders OK with apartments, balk at SC law that allows break on property taxes
An area of Rock Hill that’s long waited for change may get it. But they first may have to wait for a South Carolina law to change.
York Capital and Albright Corners want to rezone 127 acres at Mt. Holly and Albright Roads, south of Saluda Street. The two developers would combine to create commercial space with 475 homes, townhomes or apartments. The proposal is part of a years-long effort to grow that area and perhaps attract a new grocery store to a place largely without one.
“This does bring more residential property to the south side of Rock Hill,” said Mayor John Gettys. “This does potentially put us in a place where more rooftops would bring in a grocery store which we desperately need.”
Proposed plan would put 475 new homes, townhomes and apartments in Rock Hill
The problem is the apartments. The zoning proposal almost didn’t get a discussion Monday night when Rock Hill City Council met.
“I’m not trying to kill what the applicant has got going forward but, I can’t imagine four of us voting for 400 apartments tonight,” said Councilman Kevin Sutton.
State law is the sticking point
Gettys said a state law passed last year allows an apartment complex owner in South Carolina to claim that property as affordable housing and pay no property tax.
“We’ve seen property owners in Rock Hill do this,” Gettys said. “We’ve seen property owners around the state of South Carolina do this. It is a bad law. There is nothing good about this law. It makes rich people richer, and it hurts local communities. And it does not create more affordable housing.”
Even council members who support redevelopment efforts in the Mt. Holly, Albright and Saluda areas have concerns with what the state law.
“We’re in the business of being great stewards with people’s money and if they’re not contributing to their part, then that’s a problem long-term,” said Councilman Derrick Lindsay.
The apartment issue is bigger than this one current project. Gettys told city planning staff to let others eyeing apartment projects understand what’s happening, and that they need to call state legislators if they have concerns.
“Warn anyone who comes to apply now or is early in the process,” Gettys said, “that their applications probably will not come before us until this issue is resolved.”
Gettys said there’s no guarantee the law will change. He also said the current project is of high importance for the city and has been in process for four or five years. Council voted to pass the first of two needed readings. They won’t, however, take up final reading until state law changes or the city can work out some type of agreement with the developer to mitigate the tax issue.
“We don’t want a lot more apartments with the current state law on the books,” Councilwoman Kathy Pender said. “But for me it’s not a waste of time to go ahead and look at this.”
A long wait for change
Councilman Perry Sutton said it’s important not to put off the proposed project any longer than necessary. Perry Sutton said he’s been to that area and spoken with residents, where he heard about 60 years of promises from the city.
“I heard this all week,” he said. “And when I said we’ve got something coming this week, they said it’s about time.”
Perry Sutton said the community lost a grocery store, and more homes are needed to get one close to people who live there.
“The people in that area have been waiting for change, have been waiting for something to happen and we have denied them for years,” he said. “Here is an opportunity to do it and do it right.”
Rock Hill residents shouldn’t be punished, he said, because legislators in Columbia made a decision that harms them.
Councilman Jim Reno said it likely will be at least January or February before the city would consider a final decision, since it would take that long to know what the general assembly might do. Even if the state chooses to change or amend the law, the implications of how it would impact Rock Hill aren’t known.
If the law remains, Rock Hill is unlikely to see new apartments in the area, or on others around the city. At least not on sites that would need annexation, rezoning or otherwise don’t already allow apartment development.
“Unless our legal team, working with the developer, can assure us we have some bulletproof way of getting around the apartments (issue) I’m a hard ‘no’ on this on second reading,” Kevin Sutton said. “Nothing against the developer or the neighbors that I know want it but there’s no way we can allow 400 apartments to come into the city that may not ever pay a dime for police protection or fire protection or all the other services that we provide.”
