No new park

CPW to sell Grace Street property

July 13, 2007

By CHRIS TRAINOR
Index-Journal staff writer

Any local residents who had hopes of one day spending recreation time with their families on a proposed sprawling 44-acre park on Grace Street seemingly had those dreams dashed Thursday morning.
After nearly seven years of negotiations, the Commissioners of Public Works decided at its Thursday meeting not to proceed any further with a plan that called for CPW to deed 44 acres at the old Grace Street water plant to the City of Greenwood, who would have then deeded the land to Greenwood County for the purposes of a public park.
Instead, the commissioners voted, by a count of 2-1, to authorize CPW officials to pursue selling the property, ostensibly for commercial ventures.
At the behest of CPW board member Gene Hancock, a stipulation was added to that proposal that would pursue having some walking trails and greenspace on the property.
Hancock and chairman Henry Watts voted for selling the property, Mike Monaghan voted against selling. Monaghan stated several times during the meeting that he would not vote to sell the property.
After years of legal wrangling and deliberation, it appeared recently that a deal was set to be struck that would have brought about a park on Grace Street that would have featured multiple playgrounds, rolling greenspace, a pond, areas for assembly and possibly even a museum/educational center.
County Council passed a resolution in April stating the conditions under which it would accept the land and move ahead with the park. CPW would have deeded the land to the city, which was serving only in the capacity of a “conduit” in the deal, and the city would have directly deeded the property to the county.
The terms and conditions were as follows:
A. The deed must convey the property to the county, as a trustee of the parks commission, to be used for the construction and operation of a public park.
B. The deed must provide that title to the property would revert to the city or , alternatively, to CPW, if the parks commission does not construct a park on the property within five years of the date of conveyance or if the property ceases to be used as a public park.
C. The deed must provide the county the option to convey the property back to CPW at any time, without restriction or limitation.
D. The county agrees to release the city from any liability which the city might have incurred in its interim ownership of the property.
E. The county will enter into an inter-governmental agreement with the city and CPW agreeing to be responsible for any residual liability that either entity might incur as a result of their past ownership of the property, to be secured by a mortgage on the property with the provision that the county has the right to deed the property to the entity against whom such a claim for liability is asserted.
F. The county will provide liability insurance covering the property, with the coverage being consistent with the liability coverage which it provides for other properties it owns. CPW and the city reportedly took issue with items C and E in the proposal and, according to information from Thursday’s meeting, CPW hand delivered an amended proposal to the county in May.
However, all three members of the CPW board said Thursday that they never received a response to those proposed amendments in writing.
Local attorney Billy Nicholson, a member of the parks commission, was on hand Thursday and said he had had discussions with county officials who have told him they wouldn’t have a problem negotiating on point C. However, he said that a letter of indemnity agreement, as it relates to point E, is not legal.
All of this discussion was part of Thursday’s spirited and vocal meeting in CPW’s boardroom, one that saw passionate assertions and arguments from Monaghan, Watts, Hancock, Nicholson, local residents and comments from city manger Steven Brown.
Watts set the tone early on.
“I have some concerns about the value of this property,” Watts said. “We are spending $4,000 a year just to keep it up.”
Watts went on to say that CPW has recently seen a natural gas increase and borrowed $10 million for improvements. He said he thinks CPW can sell the Grace Street property for $4-5 million, which would go a long way toward paying back the $10 million.
“My position is to sell the property,” Watts said, firmly. “We are a utilities (supplier). We sell water, electric and gas. Our concern is for our customers.”
Monaghan then stated disappointment that an accord could not be reached.
“I’m very discouraged we were not able to come to an agreement,” Monaghan said. “But I won’t vote to sell.”
Nicholson then was given the floor to speak— which caused Monaghan and CPW’s Steve Reeves to joke about arguing against an “eloquent speaker”— and immediately reminded the board that CPW had long ago agreed to donate the property for use as a park. He also expressed his opinion that the bulk of the property is not viable as commercial property.
Another hurdle in making the land available for commercial purposes is quite practical: the land is not zoned for commercial use, according to statements made by Nicholson and Brown after Thursday’s meeting.
Monaghan countered that money concerns were not an issue for him, but liability was. He said he was particularly concerned about liability as it related to the water plant building on the property.
“The building is a concern,” Monaghan said. “Kids could get hurt there, plus there could be issues with asbestos or lead paint. Still, to be fair, I believe we have bent over backwards in trying to get a deal done here.”
Monaghan added that potential environmental issues at the site weren’t a sticking point for him, saying that if there was an environmental issue on the land caused by CPW, CPW should pay to fix the issue.
Nicholson cited the historical relevance of the Grace Street site, which has served as a water source for the city, a park and a golf course. Nicholson called the Grace Street property a “natural asset to the county.”
Hancock sought to correct Nicholson on that point.
“It’s an asset of the city, period!” Hancock said.
Nicholson then smiled and compromised on his statement, saying the property is a “natural asset of the community.”
Hancock later raised concerns about what governmental entity would care for the proposed Grace Street Park. He used the West Cambridge Park as an example, saying that city employees mow grass there and city law enforcement patrols the area for vandalism, even though it is a county parks commission project.
Monaghan said he would like to see documentation that the county was prepared to accept the land into its parks system, particularly as it related to the funding and upkeep of the proposed site.
Local resident William John Park addressed the commissioners and made his feelings known.
“If all of us really want a park, then get together and make it happen,” Park said. “The people want a park there, not real estate development.”
Monaghan and Hancock spoke about a proposed alternative site for a park, mentioning 50+ acres in south Greenwood. Nicholson again stressed the potential for instead having a large par on Grace, so close to one of Greenwood’s busiest thoroughfares in the 72 Bypass.
“Highway 72 is an abysmal failure in terms of all the concrete and the aesthetics,” Nicholson said. “It would bring so much more to the community to have this greenspace cultivated into a park rather than using it for commerce.”
Nicholson implored the commissioners that the decision about the park is one that could be one of the most important in the history of Greenwood and that it could be one that defined the legacies of this particular commission.
Brown later addressed the commissioners and suggested all three entities involved need to get together in the same room and work towards a deal. Local resident Chuck Drake spoke up and suggested the same, saying that there should be no rush to make decision Thursday since its taken seven years to get to this point.
Though he laughed at the suggestion that anything on the project can or has happened in a hurry, Monaghan seemed to agree with Drake. He made a motion that the issue be tabled until the next CPW meeting. However, he did not receive a second and that was when Watts made his motion. Watts had stated firmly earlier in the meeting that the commissioner were “going to make a decision (Thursday).”
After the meeting, Park expressed his displeasure with the decision.
“They were without foresight,” Park said. “Fifty years from now people could have looked back and said, ‘Wow, that was a forward thinking group.’ Instead, they want the money.”

To judge a barbecue contest, local judges need to take a

Competition course

July 13, 2007

By LARRY SINGER
Index-Journal staff writer

Standing in front of about 70 attentive adults in a pair of blue Bermuda shorts and a blue shirt, Stephen Smith is in charge.
Smith has risen to the top in the world of barbecue judging, and the people who gathered Thursday at Inn on the Square came to learn the finer points of barbecue judging, according to the strict rules and regulations of the Kansas City Barbeque Society.
The official name of the course that Smith, who is an official KCBS master judge/instructor, is teaching is a Certified Barbeque Judging Class for the KCBS.
What Smith intended to do was introduce his students to the way the KCBS judges barbecue and send his students on their way.
Those who attended came to one of only about a dozen classes that take place every year to teach people how to judge a barbecue contest.
Some of Smith’s students are people who just want to learn to judge, while others are competitors who have come to learn what judges look for in a few of the 200 barbecue competitions that take place annually throughout the United States, Canada and Mexico, so they can begin taking home some barbecue competition trophies.
“We continue to increase our contests every year,” Smith said.
The first thing Smith tells members of his class, who might also be competitors in barbecue competitions, is never, ever, argue with a barbecue judge.
“I may be wrong sometimes,” he told his class, “but things occasionally get hectic and don’t ever argue with me or any judge.”
Among the things the students learned from Smith is that chicken, pork ribs, pork and beef brisket are the four main KCBS meat categories and that garnish and sauce is optional.
The students also found out that all competition meat is inspected by the official meat inspector.
Every novice judge in the room discovered that each contestant must submit at least six portions of meat in a container, and brisket may be chopped, pulled, sliced or diced.
J.B. McCarty, one of Smith’s students, traveled to class from Charleston.
“I cook competitively, and I just want to see what the other side of the world is looking at,” McCarty said. “Hopefully, this will give me a competitive edge.”
C. Edmond Allen said he is taking the class because he likes to judge, cook and eat the barbecue he cooks.
“I love barbecue,” Allen said. “I do a lot of cooking personally, and I just want to improve my techniques. I’m also a barbecue judge, and I just want to expand my horizons.”

Obituaries

Bessie Adams Baylor

Mrs. Bessie Adams Baylor, 77, of 649 Mclees Ave., departed this life on July 10, 2007 at her home. Born in Greenwood, she was the daughter of the late Oliver and Bessie Strong Adams. She was the last survivor of her immediate family. She was a member of Marshall Chapel Baptist Church, Ninety Six. She was a member of the Usher Board, Missionary Society, Girl Scout Leader, Friendly Community Club and Women’s Home Aid Society No. 11.
Survivors are two daughters, Brenda (Benny) Holloway, Greenwood and Debbie (Norman) Vickers, Los Angeles, CA; one son, Rev. Oliver T. Baylor of the home; 6 grandchildren and one great-grandchild; and a special friend, Mrs. Willie Bell Williams of Greenwood.
Services are Sat., July 14, 2007 at 2 p.m. at Marshall Chapel Baptist Church with burial to follow in church cemetery. Body will be placed in church at 1 p.m.
Officiating minister, Rev. Henry D. Smith, Assisting, Revs. Eric Morton, James Arnold, Doris Brooks, Roosevelt Brooks, Elbert Holmes and Carl Wells.
Pallbearers are, Melvin Holloway, Matthew Holloway, Patrick Cole, Roy Parks Jr., Charlie Holloway, Unisa Cole. Flower bearers are family and friends. Honorary escorts, W.H.A. Society No. 11 and Friendly Community Club.
The family is at the home of her daughter, Brenda Holloway, 802 Anderson St., where friends will be received. Viewing from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. Friday at Parks Funeral Home.
Parks Funeral Home is assisting the family.

William Clifford Kinard

William Clifford Kinard, 62, of Greenwood, husband of Beverly Edwards Kinard, died July 11 at Self Regional Medical Center. He was born September 29, 1944, a son of the late Willie Fred and Rosa Bell Hill Kinard. He was a former member of Jacob Chapel Baptist Church.
Surviving are two daughters, Felicia K. Moton and Tonya K. Parks of Greenwood; three brothers, John C. Kinard and Michael Kinard of Greenwood and Donald Ray Kinard of Enoree, SC; three sisters, Vera Kinard Mayes of Greenwood, Lisa K. Hunt and Olivia Hartwell of Greenwood; five grandchildren, Dorian Wright of Greensboro, NC, Tron Wright of Greensboro, NC, J.J. Wright , Chaston Moton and Joshua Moton of Greenwood.
Funeral services will be held Saturday at 2 p.m. from Percival-Tompkins Chapel with Bishop Roosevelt Moton officiating. Burial will be in Jacob Chapel cemetery. Pallbearers and Flower bearers will be friends of the family.
Online condolences may be sent to pertompfh1@earthlink.net.
The family is at the home of a daughter, Felicia Moton, 108 Dublin Street, Emerald Place.

Henry Patterson

McCORMICK — Henry Patterson, 90, formerly of 138 South University Street, Greenwood, died on July 11, 2007 at Savannah Heights Living Center. Born in McCormick, he was the son of the late William Henry Johnson and the late Mary Patterson Anderson. He was in the Army during World War II and he spent most of his service time in France and Okinawa. He was the first African-American to fly an airplane in Greenwood. He was a member of Morris Chapel Baptist Church.
Survivors include two sons, Marvin (Loretta) Patterson of Webster, NY, and Henry Arthur “Bino” Patterson of Greenwood; two daughters, Imogene P. Andrews of Buffalo, NY, and Brenda J. (David) Calhoun of Greenwood; three sisters, Bertha Belton of Calhoun Falls, Willie Mae Whatley of Atlanta, GA, and Bernice Young of Rome, GA; twelve grandchildren, one that was reared in the home, Penelope P. Smith of Atlanta, GA, and a host of grandchildren.
Services are 2:00 p.m. Sunday, July 15, 2007 at Morris Chapel Baptist Church conducted by the Rev. Ricky V. Syndab. The body will be placed in the church at 1 p.m. Burial will be in the Evening Star Cemetery. The family will receive friends on Saturday evening from 6-8 at the Chapel of Robinson & Son Mortuary, Inc. The family is at the home of a daughter, Brenda Calhoun, 111 Ashcroft Drive (Country Home Subdivision).
Online condolences may be sent to robson@nctv.com.
Robinson & Son Mortuary, Inc. is in charge of arrangements.

Valerie Patterson

Valerie Patterson, 49, of Wisewood Apts No. 5, died July 9 at Self Regional Medical Center. She was born in Greenwood County Aug. 23, 1957, a daughter of the late Benjamin Winkfield and Sallye Dawson Winkfield. She was formerly employed at Park Seed.
Surviving are her husband, Johnnie Patterson; two sons, Adreon Patterson and Enrico Patterson of the home; one brother, Vernell Lee; four sisters, Brenda Oliver and Toni Lee of Greenwood, Verna Winkfield of Hodges and Joyce Hill of Lithonia, Ga.
Graveside services will be held Saturday at 10 a.m. Greenwood Memorial Gardens with Rev. George Oliver officiating assisted by Rev. Curtis Patterson.
Online condolences may be sent to pertompfh1@earthlink.net.
The family is at the home. Percvial-Tompkins Funeral Home is assisting the Patterson family.

Elsie Smith

A memorial service for Elsie Horne Smith will be held at 11 a.m., Saturday, July 14, in the Sanctuary of the First Baptist Church of Greenwood, 722 Grace Street. Immediately following the service, the family will receive friends in the Fellowship Hall of the church.

Opinion

Keep old water plant site for park before it’s gone

July 13, 2007

Build a new park on the site of the old water plant property at the corner of Grace Street and 72 By-Pass? Now, really! Those who have long labored to make it happen can be excused if they have had their doubts they’d ever see that day. They might even be thinking now that it was all no more than a ruse, and that the powers that be never seriously considered anything but selling the property.
Apparently that’s what’s been decided by the CPW Commissioners. CPW owns the land and the commissioners have now decided to rescind an offer to turn over the property to the city to be used for a park.
After extended “negotiations” over legal points, what was and is a good plan to build a new park on the site apparently is dead ..... that is if the decision by the CPW Commissioners is not changed.

ONE THING SHOULD BE MADE absolutely clear. Everything that is “owned” by the CPW, the City of Greenwood and any other government agency is, in fact, owned by the people of Greenwood. Unfortunately, there are times when some sitting officials seem to think they are the owners and thus that precludes the public’s right to have any sayso.
There are indeed legal issues involved. That’s undeniable. Nevertheless, they are not so chiseled in stone that they cannot be overcome, especially if the citizens of Greenwood decide that’s what they want. They can do it, too, but it will take leadership and determination to “fight city hall,” as the saying goes.
This property is the last publicly owned “green space” in the City of Greenwood that would be perfect as a park. Imagine what the public benefits of a new park could be. One major thing comes to mind immediately: the quality of life.

THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN all of Greenwood County is exceptional, but that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be improved by the addition of things that offer that improvement automatically. A park, without question, falls into that category.
The public deserves a bigger voice in this debate. The best way to do that is for the public to speak up, loudly and clearly ..... and often. Once that “green space” is gone it’s not likely to return.
CPW Commissioners and all the other officials involved surely want what’s best for the people they represent. It’s hard to see how anything could be better than to put a park on this publicly-owned parcel of land that’s perfect for one.
What presents a better image? Dollar signs dancing in a few eyes or children peacefully and safely at play? That ought to be a no-brainer.