►
From YouTube: City of Charleston Ways & Means Meeting - April 23, 2019
Description
City of Charleston Ways & Means Meeting - April 23, 2019
A
B
C
Take
time
to
be
holy,
speak
art
with
our
God
abiding
him
always
and
feed
on
his
word,
Heavenly
Father.
We
come
to
you
once
again
next
to
jicama
tile,
mist
and
bless
everyone
who
was
assembling
here
today.
My
colleagues,
the
mayor
and
everyone
else
who
is
sitting
here
in
these
historical
chambers
and
let
my
colleagues
know
in
all
of
us
that
we
are
here
as
a
servant
and
that's
what
you
have
place
has
had
to
be
and
not
do
anything
for
personal
gain,
but
to
serve
your
people,
which
is
our
brothers
and
sisters.
B
C
B
C
D
B
B
All
right,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
Those
opposed
now
is
have
it
item
12.
The
fire
department
submitted
2019
Homeland
Security,
grant
any
discussion
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
those
opposed.
Let's
have
it
item
13
the
police
department
approval
to
apply
application
for
130
$23,000
for
an
advocate
resource
specialist
and
discussion
council
moody.
D
B
B
B
B
D
B
Okay,
so
the
the
site
in
question
that
was
that
this
associated
with
is
the
contract
between
City
Charleston
School
of
Law,
that
that
we
would
allow
for
the
vertical,
as
this
was
done
actually
almost
two
years
ago
now.
The
Roberto
clause
would
be
removed
from
this
property
and
be
sold,
and
then
we
would
be
have
a
split
between
ourselves
and
and
the
Charleston
School
of
Law
and
I
think
you
all
have
probably
familiar
with
that
transaction
effectively.
B
What
happens
is
that
this
transaction
was
a
two-year
agreement
and
we
had
the
opportunity
that
it
would
automatically
extend
for
a
third
year
unless
either
party
ourselves
or
the
school
of
law
made
the
decision
and
chose
not
to
allow
for
this
the
the
contract
to
extend
for
the
third
year.
We
had
to
give
sixty
days
notice
and
we
are
within
that
time
frame,
and
so
the
whole
whole
point
of
me
asking
for
this
to
come
forward
is
I.
B
Think
we
all
recognize
the
situation
at
hand
with
this
property
being
sold
for
a
very
substantial
amount
of
money,
much
more
so
than
this
body
actually
had
even
contemplated
back
originally,
when
when
this
Roberta
was
allowed
to
be
removed
two
years
ago,
but
moreover,
it's
now
being
sold
for
a
hotel
and
the
site
is
certainly
from
a
civic
planning
perspective,
not
the
appropriate
site
for
a
hotel.
It
is
appropriate
site
for
the
School
of
Law,
but
they've
chosen,
at
least
in
the
last
discussions.
B
Subsequently,
to
that
it
would
make
that
our
note
would
be
due,
because
we
did
in
fact
lend
them
the
money
to
buy
it
from
us.
Does
that
sounds
that
did
in
fact
occur,
but
we
did
that,
and
so
by
allowing
for,
for
that
to
happen,
our
intent,
and
our
hope
is
that
it
gives
us
an
opportunity
to
renegotiate
this
transaction
and
I
will
say.
B
As
an
aside
as
we
finished
up
the
real
estate
committee,
it
there
could
be
an
opportunity
if
we
were
to
allow
for
some
potential
variances
on
that
site
that
the
school
law
may
be
able
to
use
that
site,
which
is
the
first
I've
heard
of
that,
and,
quite
frankly,
as
I
told
mr.
bell,
it
would
make
I.
Don't
think
I
think
this
body
very
pleased
to
have
the
school
I'll
go
there,
because
that's
what
we
intended
when
we
did
this
back
in
2005.
If
I
remember,
there
are
a
couple
things.
B
The
reason
why
I
brought
this
forward
and
I
thought
it
was
important
number
one.
Is
that
the
deal
as
it
stands?
Given
the
circumstances,
we
now
know
a
proper
sales
price
at
twelve
and
a
half
million
dollars.
Seventy-Five
percent
of
that
going
to
the
School
of
Law
in
25
foot
city
of
Charleston
is
a
great
deal
for
the
School
of
Law
and
is
not
a
great
deal
for
the
city
and
the
taxpayers.
The
other
thing
that's
important
to
recognize
is
that
this
body
now
has
more
information
than
it
had
before.
B
There
are
many
things
that
we
were
not
aware
of
in
real
estate
in
the
subsequently
City
Council
years
ago.
That,
quite
frankly,
had
we
had
that
information.
It
is
very
unlikely
that
we
would
have
actually
approved
that
reverter
to
be
removed
two
years
ago.
The
things
that
we
didn't
know
we
didn't
know
that
it
was
going
to
be
marketed
specifically
for
a
hotel.
We
didn't
know
that
the
value
was
as
significant
as
it.
In
fact
was.
It
came
to
light
that
we
didn't
know
that
the
mayor
school
law
was
a
client
of
his.
B
We
didn't
know
that
his
son's
firm
was
representing
a
part
of
that
transaction.
These
are
all
things
that
we
would
have
taken
into
consideration
and
we
would
have
spent
some
more
time
due
diligence
understanding
exactly
what
this
transaction
meant
for
the
citizens
of
Charleston.
Now
that
we
have
that
information
I
think
we
need
to
take
an
opportunity
and
do
our
best
for
our
citizens
of
Charleston
to
take
a
shot
and
try
to
change
the
trajectory
of
what
happens
on
that
site.
That's
the
reason
I
brought
it
forward.
B
F
F
A
reminder
of
the
incredible
public
benefit
that
the
School
of
Law
brings
to
our
city
and
the
original
purpose
for
the
sale
of
the
property
to
them
way
before
I
became
mayor
almost
10
years
ago
that
Mayor
Riley
and
the
council
of
that
time
realized
that
the
great
institutional
and
economic
benefit
of
having
a
graduate
program,
a
law
school
here
in
Charleston.
So
in
addition,
as
I,
couldn't
nowhere
near
as
eloquently
as
mr.
F
Bell
shared
with
us
and
a
few
of
his
students
were
there
today
the
thousands
of
hours
that
the
students
give
back
to
our
community,
the
amazing
diversity
of
their
student
population,
higher
minority
participation
in
a
law
school
than
I
think
almost
anywhere
in
the
country,
the
economic
benefit
of
having
a
staff
of
three
hundred
and
some-odd
with
the
school
and
and
the
students
as
well.
It's
just
an
amazing
benefit
to
Charleston
and,
as
you
noted
mr.
F
chairman,
at
the
end
of
the
discussion,
there
was
a
willingness
for
for
them
to
discuss
other
possibilities
with
with
with
the
property
and
with
the
city,
and
so
I
would
respectfully
ask,
and
we
also
learn
that
the
the
date
for
the
notice
being
given
rather
than
the
end
of
June,
is
actually
the
end
of
July
I.
Think
July
20th
that
the
the
agreement
actually
wasn't
signed
until
late
July.
So
so
we
still
have
at
least
another
month
to
be
able
to
give
them
the
60-day
notice.
F
If
that's
something
the
council
would
like
to
do
and
for
the
record
I
I
do
want
to
share,
as
I
did
in
the
committee
meeting,
that
when
I
was
elected
mayor,
that
I
hung
up
my
real
estate
license
and
since
that
time
have
represented
no
one
and
no
one,
including
the
School
of
Law.
As
a
as
a
real
estate,
client
I've
been
out
of
the
business
so
anyway,
I
would
respectfully
ask
Council
to
defer
this
matter
until
at
least
our
next
meeting,
so
that
mr.
F
F
G
G
Opportunity
to
take
our
responsibilities
seriously
to
the
taxpayers.
I
was
very
impressed
with
the
recount
from
the
president
of
the
Law,
School
and
I
believe
the
statistics
and
I
believe
the
outcome
of
the
law.
Schools
benefit
to
the
community
and
something
that
we
could
not
physically,
replace
financially
replace
in
the
way
that
the
students
that
are
in
law
school
are
able
to
supplement
all
of
the
legal
work
that
is
done
pro
bono
for
our
whole
community,
so
community
lien
trust
that
I
serve
on.
As
a
as
a
volunteer
board.
G
Member
has
received
significant
pro
bono
services
from
the
law
school,
so
I've
been
an
observer
of
their
skill
at
doing
that.
One
of
the
convincers
for
me
today
was
mr.
Bell's,
clear
statement
to
us
that
if
we
decided
to
remove
or
give
the
notice
within
60
days
to
not
honor
the
three
year
except
the
third
year
extension
that
they
would
be
able
to
repay
the
city,
the
money
that's
owed.
So
that
really
takes
away
the
opportunity
to
do
any
sort
of
creative
renegotiation
of
this
contract
and
I.
G
Think
that
we
should-
and
we
really
did
not
know
and
I-
think
it
would
be
worthy
to
find
out
the
background
on
the
conversations
that
had
gone
on
with
the
law
school
and
how
they
might
better
redevelop
their
property
for
their
own
law.
School
use.
So
I
think
we
do
have
a
great
opportunity
to
do
that
and
that's
why
I
would
ask
that
we
could
defer
it
for
at
least
another
month
and
then
seriously
explore
the
availability
of
this
property
to
the
law.
Schools.
Long
term
purpose
to
stay
here:
Thank,
You,
councilman,.
H
H
How
he
was
a
part
of
this
at
that
time.
Did
John
know
about
that
at
the
time,
and
so
that
to
me
is
a
red
flag
and
then
the
bigger
red
flag
is
that
you
know
just
recently
in
the
last
week
or
two.
You
know,
there's
been
all
this,
this
talk
of
hotel
moratoriums
and
how
the
City
Council
and
the
mayor
at
odds.
But
yet
the
mayor
is
sitting
up
here,
defending
the
building
of
a
hotel
and
that
to
me
is
very
hypocritical.
H
It
doesn't
make
sense
and
we've
got
to
decide
what
we're
doing
here,
either
we're
against
hotels
or
we're
not
we're
not
gonna
be
for
hotel,
because
somebody
had
a
part
of
it.
That's
not
fair,
so
you
know
I,
don't
think
waiting
a
month
is
gonna.
Do
anything
you
know
either
we're
gonna
move
forward
on
this
project
or
we're
not.
But
this
is
not
turning
out
to
be
a
good
deal
for
the
city.
This
is
good
old
boy.
H
Politics
and
we've
got
to
get
away
from
this
because
you
know
somebody
turns
out
looking
like
rose
and,
and
the
other
doesn't
turn
out
looking
good
at
all.
And
it's
because
we
were
nice
and
we
we
tried
to
invest
in
something
and
now
we're
getting
nothing
out
of
in
our
taxpayers
are
the
ones
who
are
suffering
and
private
people
are
the
one
who
are
benefiting.
That's
just
not
fair,
Kassar
Mitchell,
like.
C
C
If
it's
not
that
the
school,
the
law
school
was
not
not
going
to
exist
at
the
time,
and
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
were
using
taxpayers
money
at
the
time
doing
this
and
giving
them
this
school,
but
if
they
can't
use
it
as
come
back,
come
back
to
the
city
and
then
the
city
ones,
we
couldn't
sell
it
now
they
are
selling
my
dilemma.
Nicholas
sell
to
make
all
this
money
pretend
to
get
the
change.
I,
don't
understand!
That's
the
problem!
I!
C
Don't
understand
that
piece
of
it
I
think
we
can
sell
to
make
all
that
money
is
put
in
affordable
housing
and
that's
that's
what
I
looking
at
affordable
housing,
but
if
they're
gonna
sell
make
all
this
money,
then
I
got
a
problem
with
that.
I
have
a
big
problem
with
that.
Mr.
mayor
I
have
a
big
problem
with
that.
C
When
I
heard
about
this,
that's
my
dilemma
on
that,
because
we
put
the
roberta
clause
in
the
in
that
doing
that
time
in
2005
or
whenever
it
was
to
protect
us
to
protect
the
city
to
protects
our
taxpayers,
because
that
taxpayers
money
that
we
are
using,
we
us
would
be
good
stewards
of
taxpayers,
money
or
taxpayers
dolls
and
right
now,
I
mean.
But
I
heard
it's
big
on
the
cell
to
make
all
this
money.
I
say
my
god:
you're
not
gonna
get
nothing.
C
Two
million
dollar
3
million
odds,
and
you
can
make
1515
million
twelve
million
dollars
away
I'm
the
case.
Maybe
that's
ludicrous
to
me.
I-
have
a
problem
with
that,
because
this
is
Willy
walls
and
that's
why
we
put
the
Bieber
the
claws
and
most
of
the
things
that
we
do.
That
here
is
fail
to
exist.
Are
they
can't
do
it
anymore?
C
As
we
Brooks
back
to
the
city,
then
we
can
do
something
with
it
and
that's
my
problem
with
it,
because
Civic
League
you'll
be
giving
me
too
much
on
this
and
that's
it
wherever
the
colleagues.
My
colleagues
are
decide
didn't
want
to
do.
But
that's
my
dilemma:
low
in
there
and
I
have
I,
have
mixed
emotions
right
now.
I.
I
J
Clauses
to
be
used
for
construction
and
I,
don't
have
the
exact
language
in
front
of
me,
but
I
can
get
it
but
related
to
law,
school
operations
and
so
just
to
fast
forward.
You
know
for
everybody's
recollection
back
in
2017,
you
know:
City
Council
approved
basically
an
arrangement
where
the
Charleston
School
of
Law
was
given
the
ability
to
sell
the
property,
and
at
that
point
in
time
we
said
if
it's,
if
it's
sold
or
when
it's
sold,
the
city's
note
would
be
repaid,
which
was
eight
hundred
sixty-five
thousand
dollars
in
any
accrued
interest.
J
It
was
understood
or
believed
that
the
Charleston
School
of
Law
would
stay
on
the
peninsula,
but
that
its
current
location
was
not
suitable
for
the
law
school,
and
so
this
agreement
gave
them
the
authority
to
go
ahead
and
try
to
sell
the
property
to
stay
on
the
peninsula,
to
develop
a
law
school
at
a
more
suitable
place
and
at
the
time
that
they
would
sell
the
property,
the
city
would
get
paid
back.
The
note
any
accrued
interest
that
was
not
paid
and
the
million
dollars
to
remove
the
reverter.
J
It
has
a
terminus
that
says
the
agreement
expires
in
two
years,
which
would
be
July
20th
of
this
year.
There's
got
to
be
a
60
day,
advance
notice
if
we're
going
to
terminate,
but
the
agreement
could
be
extended
for
one
more
year
and
there's
a
term
that
says
if
the
property
is
not
sold
at
the
time
of
the
expiration
of
the
agreement
either
now
or
a
year
from
now.
J
I
J
Notice
will
terminate
the
agreement
and,
under
the
terms
of
the
2017
agreement,
we
are
entitled
to
have
this
Charleston
School
of
Law
pay
back
the
note,
which
is
eight
hundred
sixty
five
thousand
dollars
and
any
interest.
That's
due,
which
Amy
told
me
is
about
thirty,
four
thousand
right,
thirty,
four
thousand
dollars,
so
we
would
get
eight
sixty
five
and
thirty
four
thousand
six
hundred
dollars
back
at
the
time
of
termination.
J
However,
the
Charleston
School
of
Law
still
has
the
authority
to
move
forward
with
selling
the
property
and
at
the
time
of
the
sale
we
would
get
proceeds.
25
percent
of
I'm
gonna
call
it
the
net
proceeds,
but
it's
the
pros
25
percent
of
the
proceeds,
but
you
take
off
the
top
real
estate
commission,
deed
stamps,
something
else
so.
I
I
They
still
have
the
ability
to
sell
the
property
it
would
ever
price
they
come
up
with
we
get
our
negotiated
cut
out
of
that
will
be
as
already
discussed,
but
this
does
not
stop
the
sale
of
the
property
and
that's
not
so
whatever
whoever
buys
it
has
to
go
through
the
regular
zoning
requirements
and
other
requirements
to
build
what
they
want
to
build
on
there.
So
we're
not
the
other,
make
sure
we're
clear
on
this:
we're
not
stopping
to
sell
the
property.
With
this
motion
are
we
that's
all
I'm
les.
My
question
now.
J
I
J
B
Will
pay
us
our
note?
Our
note
immediately
becomes
due
they've
got
to
write
us
a
check
for
$165,000
plus
accrued
interest,
if
they're
available
to
do
that,
and
they
can
write
that
check
to
us
fantastic
if
they
can't
or
they
choose
to
negotiate
the
terms
in
which
that
loan
is
repaid
and
extend
the
terms
that
we
will
certainly
engage
with
them
in
a
discussion
with
that.
B
But
if
they
choose
option
B,
which
quite
frankly,
is
the
better
option,
then
we
will
proceed
with
that
negotiation
and
with
the
expectation
we'll
end
up
with
a
better
split
for
the
citizens
of
Charleston
and
giving
us
purview
over
who
they
sell
it
to
for
the
future
purpose
on
that
site.
Now,
the
other
alternative
is
a
notes
do,
and
we
can
foreclose
I.
Don't
suggest
that
that's
the
right
thing
to
do,
but
that's
certainly
within
our
right
as
a
mortgagee
on
that
point
with
that,
lump
that
that
loan
well.
I
I
still
have
the
floor.
Is
one
make
sure
that
I'm,
just
following
all
this
that
we
all
understand
this,
so
we
give
them
the
notice
and
they
exercise
option
a
they
can
proceed
and
do
what
they
want
with
the
property
we
get
our
money,
they
can
sell
it
and
then
whoever
buys
that
property
has
to
go
through
routine
of
developing.
If
they
come
back
and
say
we
want
to
enter
into
further
discussions,
that's
exactly
what
we're
doing
we're
entering
into
discussions
of
how
to
handle
this
man
extended
or
extinguished
the
extension.
I
I
I
understand
mr.
chairman,
but
if
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
worth
stepping
through
this
process
that
we
all
understand
what
we
were
exercising
are
not
exercise
if
the
intent
here
is
that
we
want
the
law
school
to
remain
on
the
peninsula
and
we're
encouraging
them
to
stay
on
the
peninsula
and
develop
this
land
in
the
city
owns
and
to
keep
the
law
school
here.
I'm.
Just
not
sure
that
this
motion
on
the
floor
is
the
right
mechanism
for
doing
that.
I
I
agree
with
everybody
that
we
need
to
encourage
them
and
do
what
we
need
to
do
to
keep
them
on
the
peninsula.
There's
a
lot
of
benefit
for
them.
Staying
on
the
peninsula
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
whatever
we're
doing
with
this
process
satisfies
that
goal
or
not
intent,
I'm
just
afraid
with
this
motion,
as
it
stands
right
now
that
we
may
be
doing
the
exact
opposite
of
that
and
I'm
just
I,
don't
I
haven't
talked
to
mr.
Bell
about
it.
I
I
haven't
had
any
developers
about
this
I'm
familiar
with
the
law
school,
as
the
president
of
the
County
Bar
Association
I
had
extensive
dealings
with
the
with
the
law.
School
I
know
there
the
merits
of
what
their
what
they
do
here
in
the
students
they
produce
I'm
just
one,
maybe
the
the
pause
about.
B
We
walked
out
with
my
motion
and
we've
now
gotten
to
the
point
where
we're
getting
ready
to
engage
in
discussion
where
possibly
the
School
of
Law
may
be
on
that
site,
which
is
exactly
what
we
wanted
from
the
get-go.
So
to
say
that
the
motion
that's
on
the
floor
is
not
going
to
have
the
effect
that
we
want.
B
K
You
for
bringing
this
to
our
attention
number
one,
but
it's
public
servants.
We
must
disclose
our
recuse
ourselves
from
voting
or
participating
in
anything
that
that
might
appear
as
though
their
self-interest
involved.
I've
learned
as
a
public
servant
that
the
test
is
not
whether
or
not
you
are
involved
or
whether
or
not
you're
doing
it.
It's
whether
or
not
there
is
the
parents
of
there's
an
apparent
test
here
and
I
do
think.
As
public
servants.
K
G
You,
chairman
white
I,
think
I
am
going
to
be
repeating
myself,
but
I
I
do
think
that
council
member
shade
has
put
his
finger
on
the
crux
of
what
our
vote
would
do
and
in
all
due
respect.
Yes,
you
brought
us
this
idea
of
potentially
having
the
law
school.
Consider
three
options
if
we
chose
to
not
honor
the
third
year
extension,
but
really
mr.
G
As
their
intention
is
so
this
really
is,
you
know
it's
it's
an
evolving
thing
and
I
cannot
believe
that
if
we
don't
extend,
I
mean
that
if
we
would
keep
the
extension
in
place
that
we
wouldn't
get
to
that
level
of
very
deliberative
opportunity
for
how
to
help
the
law
schools
stay
there.
So
I
don't
think
voting
on
this
motion
really
has
any
value
in
helping
that
conversation
go
forward.
So
I
I
do
want
to
vote
to
defer
Thank
You
counsel.
B
E
L
J
E
Wearing
Thank
You
mr.
chairman,
as
I,
told
President
Bill
I
just
happened
to
be
chairman
of
the
Charleston
Metro
Chamber
of
Commerce
when
this
bill,
when
the
law
school
was
looking
at
coming
to
Charleston
and
they
bought
the
building
from
the
chamber
or
entity,
I
should
say,
bought
a
building
from
the
chamber
where
this
law
school
got
the
initial
start
up
and
the
chamber
sold
that
building
for
less,
because
it
preferred
that
economic
impact
of
a
law
school
going
there.
E
There
was
a
gentleman
that
bought
or
the
entity
that
bought
Oh
Edwards
five-and-dime
had
the
higher
contract
on
the
chamber,
and
we
took
last
dollars
six
figures
last
to
enable
a
law
school
to
get
going
there.
So
as
far
as
the
impact
of
the
law
school
and
what
they
do
and
what
they
continue
to
do.
Hopefully
what
they
will
do,
I
support
and
I
think
we
all
support
it.
But
out
meeting
down
there
was
very
revealing
when
we
deliberated
and
17
at
that
time.
E
I
did
not
know
that
the
law
school
was
a
former
client
of
the
men.
He
did
not
disclose
that
in
our
deliberations
had
I
known
that
I
would
not
have
voted
to
remove
the
Roberto
clause.
I
read
that
in
the
newspaper
after
we
voted
on
it,
we
vote
after
we
vote
on
it
as
a
members
of
the
real
estate
committee,
as
well
as
City
Council.
E
E
So
to
say
that
you
gave
up
your
real
estate
license.
It
is
important
to
know
that
that's
a
former
client
of
yours
before
you
asked
us
to
vote
so
yeah
as
a
council
person
that
represents
eleven
thousand
people.
You
feel
blindsided
by
them.
You
feel,
like
you,
want
to
have
the
right
information
pro
and
con
before
you
cast
the
vote.
It's
just
a
prudent
thing
to
do.
E
Mr.
bell,
to
his
credit
after
the
vote
said
and
I'm
telling
you
he's
an
honorable
man,
he
said
if
we
could
get
two
more
floors
we
can
if
we
can
stay
right
at
the
site,
he
said,
but
the
city
told
us
we
couldn't
do
that
so
I
posed
the
question
you
mr.
mayor,
who,
in
the
city,
conveyed
to
the
law
school
that
they
could
not
expand
two
floors
for
the
law
school
to
be
placed
on
that
side.
E
So
president
Bell
is
he's
not
correct
in
saying
what
he
said
that
anybody
in
the
city
we
have
our
planners
here.
Did
anybody
in
the
city
legal
planning
mayor
any
executive
staff
conveyed
to
the
law
school
or
its
representatives
that
getting
two
additional
floors,
but
a
law
school
to
remain
at
that
site
would
not
be
approved
by
the
city.
I.
M
B
E
Any
suit
and
the
reason
I
said
your
position
with
the
law
school
previous
position
with
the
law.
School
was
important
because
there
was
a
negotiations
that
took
place.
Somebody
and
one
council.
Somebody
said:
nine
million
is
good
for
the
law
school
and
less
than
three
million,
because
remember
they
owe
us
865,000.
So
two
plus
point
one
to
point
to
additional
dollars
would
be
better
for
the
taxpayers.
E
Given
the
gravity
of
the
drainage
problems
we
have
in
this
city,
given
the
gravity
of
the
affordable
housing,
they
could
have
gone
on
that
same
site
by
the
way
and
given
the
power
frankly
of
the
ability
for
Council
to
rezone
that
property,
we
can't
do
something
about
that.
We
can
do
something
about
just
amazing.
We
have
a
knee-jerk
reaction
to
two
hundred
and
fifty
room
hotel
going
on
that
site
and
you're
singly
responsible
for
that
happening.
E
It's
best
irony
of
too
many
hotels,
but
the
disclosure
on
this
site
was
not
given
council
so
had
I
know
what
I
know
today.
I
would
not
have
voted
to
remove
the
Roberta
clause,
because
all
the
effort
of
the
2005
council
was
to
enable
expansion
of
the
law
school
at
that
site.
I
think
the
city
paid
1.1
million
and
again
solar
to
them
for
less
than
nine
hundred
thousand.
That
was
trying
to
encourage
and
I
think
we
should
continue
to
encourage
and
support
if
they
need
to
additional
clause
on
their
side.
Thank
You
mr.
Cheney.
E
B
F
E
E
F
Be
legal
counsel
could
help
a
little
bit.
There
was
a
revert
of
clause
that
was
never
violated,
so
it
was
never
the
right,
according
to
advice
from
our
legal
counsel
that
we
could
take
the
property
back
and
sell
it.
Unless
we
were
to
foreclose
on
it.
We
didn't
want
to
do
that.
The
law
school
hadn't
had
some
tough
times
mr.
Bell
bought
the
property,
bought
the
school
rather
and
really
has
had
a
miraculous
turnaround.
F
He
came
to
us
a
couple
years
ago
and
felt
because
the
height
of
parking
or
size
of
the
property
that
it
wasn't
adequate
for
the
vision
that
he
had
for
the
future
institution
here
in
Charleston,
and
so
we
unanimously
agreed
to
this
extension
of
the
agreement.
Two
years
ago
we
placed
a
value
on
the
reversion
closet,
1
million.
It
was
transparent.
F
It's
in
the
minutes
from
our
real
estate
committee
meeting
two
years
ago,
which
I
would
be
happy
to
read
to
y'all
verbatim,
if
you
like,
but
we
we
evaluated
the
thing
the
law
school
had
not
violated
the
clause.
They
could
just
keep
using
it
for
law
school
purposes,
which
was
the
original
agreement
from
2005
or
7
way
before
I
ever
became
mayor,
and
and
they
could
just
they
could
continue
to
keep
the
property
today
if
they
wanted
to
use
it
for
law
school
purposes,
but
they
were
not
in
violation.
F
So
so
it
was
really
folks
a
good
faith
negotiation.
They
didn't
even
have
to
agree
to
give
us
25%
of
the
proceeds
which
which
I
recommended
to
council
when
we
got
that
25%,
that
we
use
it
for
our
affordable
housing
needs,
and
everyone
then
thought
it
was
a
very
good
idea
and
I
still
think
that's
a
good
idea.
So
I'm
sorry,
this
has
gotten
so
complicated.
I,
just
I
believe
that
they
bring
a
huge
public
benefit
to
our
city.
F
There
have
been
our
partner
in
many
ways
you
know,
since
they
started
the
school
we
stuck
with
them.
Yes,
we're
trying.
We
try
to
help
them
two
years
ago
to
want
to
continue
that
public
benefit.
That
was
recognized
by
mayor
riley
and
by
council
that
having
a
graduate-level
institution
like
a
law
school
in
Charleston
was
a
great
idea.
It's
still
a
great
idea
and
I
I
hate
to
say,
but
I
don't
want
to
risk
running
them
all
they
had
offers.
Mr.
bell
talked
about
this
this
afternoon.
F
They
had
offers
from
Mount,
Pleasant
and
North
Charleston,
give
them
property
and
give
them
incentives.
It's
it's
a
great
I'm,
proud
to
have
the
Charleston
school
law
in
Charleston,
and
so
I
just
respectfully
think
that
we
ought
to
take
a
little
more
time
to
have
the
opportunity
to
talk
with
them
like
they
offered
to
do
I.
Think
if
you
just
go
ahead
now
and
give
them
the
notice,
there's,
there's
no
incentive
for
them
whatsoever
to
talk
to
you
anymore,
councilmember
white.
F
They
they'll
give
you
the
check
for
eight
hundred
and
sixty
five
thousand
Eadie
Bell
said
he's
gotten
the
money
he's
happy
to
give
it
to
the
city.
If
that's
what
y'all
want
and
and
then
he'll
sell
the
property
and
we'll
get
the
25
percent
and
we're
all
going
to
move
on
that.
That's
that's
a
done
deal.
We
agreed
to
that
unanimously
two
years
ago.
So.
B
I'm
gonna
make
a
quick
comment:
if
I
can
that
I?
If
you
don't
mind,
I
need
to
move
on
the
the
to
answer.
The
question
was,
in
the
event
that
we
didn't
remove,
that
reverter
cause
you're
100%
correct.
That
would
have
come
back
to
the
city
if
not
used
for
the
School
of
Law.
So
that's
100%,
correct
but
I
will
say.
I
I
continue
to
hear
from
you.
Mr.
mayor
and
I,
take
personal
offense
to
this,
that
it's
this
body's
responsibility
and
we're
the
ones
that
eliminate
your
ability
to
make
effective
change.
B
By
bringing
up
this
idea
that
you
were
going
to
remove
it
from
the
accommodations
overlay.
It
is
not
our
fault
that
the
process
that
you
take
these
things
through
are
not
accurate
and
you
don't
communicate
with
us.
That
is
not
our
fault,
but
we're
getting
blamed.
So
I
take
personal
offense
to
that
councilmember.
H
White
I
I
agree
with
you
that
the
process
is
flawed,
but
what
to
me
is
even
more
embarrassing
and
I.
Just
still
don't
understand
why
we
haven't
been
answer.
This
question,
why
you
didn't
recuse
yourself
in
2017
and
why
you
didn't?
Let
council
know
that
you
had
had
personal
dealings
and
why
we
had
to
find
out
about
in
the
media.
You
know
that
to
me
is
dishonorable.
It's
unethical.
You
should
have
shared
that
information
and
the
fact
that
you
didn't
I've
lost
a
lot
of
faith
and
trust
in
you
as
a
person.
F
Change
looks
like
that's:
the
Chairman
I
have
no
financial
interest
whatsoever
in
this
transaction.
I
did
not
represent
them,
yes,
I
represented
them.
10
years
ago
for
20
years,
I
was
in
the
oil
business
I
sold
motor
oil
to
car
dealers
and
trucking
companies,
and
even
to
your
the
company
you
work
for
bought
oil.
From
from
me,
I
mean
I've,
been
in
a
couple
of
careers
and
doesn't
business
in
Charleston,
but
since
I
became
mayor,
I
hung
up
my
real
estate
license
and
had
absolutely
zero
financial
interest
in
in
this
transaction
or
with
that
more.
F
B
I
And
there's
another
question
this
way
didn't?
Would
we
like
to
mean
I
appreciate
you
bringing
this
to
two
councils
attention?
My
question
with
this
process
is
just
to
make
sure
that
now
you
got
us
to
the
front
door,
but
let's
make
sure
that
we
don't
lose
this
opportunity
if
our
intent
is
to
keep
the
law
school
on
the
peninsula.
That's
my
concern.
I
B
B
There's
some
confidentiality
issues
I'll
share
with
you
what
I
think
I
can
share
and
I'm
looking
at
you,
mr.
Dina.
So
if
I
start
saying
something
I'm
not
supposed
to
you
say
stop,
but
there
is
a
contract
currently
in
place
to
sell
this
parcel
to
an
organization.
That's
a
bashar
with
the
velop
hotels
for
twelve
and
a
half
million
dollars.
That's
the
current
contract.
B
The
original
there
was
a
contract
that
was
in
place
and
at
first
on
this
site,
with
a
hotel
developer
that
ultimately
backed
out
of
the
contract,
because
they
told
me
and
I'd
met
with
him
yesterday
about
this,
that
they
chose
not
to
close
or
move
forward
with
the
contract,
because
they
didn't
think
that
was
the
right
place
to
put
a
hotel
and
their
hotel
developers.
So
this
contract
went
into
place
and
I
will
say
legally.
We
have
to
recognize
that
contract.
If
they
move
forward
and
it
closed,
it
is
what
it
is
and.
J
B
You
know
the
intent
and
the
interests
of
the
citizens
of
Charleston
to
the
degree
we
can
needs
to
be
heard
by
the
citizens
of
Charleston,
so
I
have
no
intentions,
and
this
came
up
in
real
estate.
I
have
no
intentions
of
having
any
discussion
whatsoever
associated
with
the
contract
that
is
currently
in
place.
That
would
require
us
to
go
into
executive
session
and
the
reason
I
would
say.
That's
because
I'm
telling
you
as
a
body,
we
have
to
recognize
that
contract
and
if
they
close,
it
is
what
it
is.
B
What
I'm
asking
this
body
to
do
and
let's
take
a
shot
at
trying
to
change.
What's
going
to
happen,
we're
already
know
what
happened
we're
there.
We
have
the
problem,
we're
already
pregnant
with
this
situation,
but
the
reality
is
that
we
may
have
an
opportunity
to
make
this
a
better
situation
than
we
currently
have
and
I
believe.
B
It's
the
right
thing
to
do,
for
citizens
of
Charleston
to
do
that
and
not
to
just
defer
a
kick
the
can
down
the
road
because,
as
I
said,
when
we
walk
in
that
door
downstairs,
there
was
going
to
be
a
hotel
in
that
site
and
we
came
out
and
now
we're
talking
about
the
school
wall
may
stay
there
and
nothing
that
would
make
me
happier
than
how
the
school
of
law
stays
exactly
on
that
site,
which
is
exactly
what
we
gave
that
property
to
them
back
in
2005.
Mr.
I
What
I'm
just
concerned
about
well
I'm
generally
worried
about,
is,
if
we
pass
this
motion
tonight,
is
that
going
to
sort
of
undo
the
work
that
y'all
have
done
so
far,
and
that
is
why
that
is
my
genuine
concern
this
month.
All
right
effort,
so
that
y'all
have
taken
so
far
should
be
carried
out
to
the
extent
that
we
can
to
lasso
them
back
into
this
discussion
to
make
sure
if
they
got
a
contract
to
close
on
this
property.
I
If
that
contract
is
gonna,
give
them
some
money
to
pay
off
their
note
and
their
obligations
to
the
city,
then
we
miss
the
opportunity
and
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
avoid
happening
missing
the
opportunity,
if
and
I
think
selectively.
We
have
all
said
this
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
keep
them
on
the
peninsula
and
use
that
property
to
the
extent
that
they
have.
So
that's
why
I
can
start
with
where
we're
going
with
this,
and
at
this
point
all.
A
N
Help
us
could
do
just
the
officer,
no
I
think
we
we
about
talked
this
thing
to
death.
We,
you
know,
looked
at
each
other
kind
of
funny
and
had
a
bunch
of
questions.
We
came
with
a
recommendation
to
voted
a
yea
or
nay.
Then
we
somehow
got
off
that.
You
know
they've
been
a
great
friend,
Ally
neighbor
to
us
the
school
of
law,
but
what
it
really
boils
down
to
is
they
got
a
really
great
deal
on
a
piece
of
property
and
now
it's
trying
to
change
hands
for
a
very
large
profit.
N
E
D
B
D
A
B
So,
okay,
all
right
so
on
just
those
items
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
those
opposed
and
the
eyes
have
it.
Then
we
have
item
E.
The
original
motion
was
in
fact
to
approve
the
report
from
the
real
estate
committee
from
councilor,
moody
and
I
believe
then
seconded
by
councilmember
Gregory.
Subsequent
to
that,
the
mayor
made
a
motion
to
defer
which
takes
precedent.
Second,
then,
then,
by
councilor
woman
Jackson.
B
L
Just
briefly
and
we've
gone
around
a
whole
bunch
of
things
on
this
property
and
where
it
stands
where
it
is
and
I'm
the
zoning
so
I
know
we're
gonna
bring
this
back
up
again
tonight.
But
when
we
talked
mister
mayor
about
the
zoning
on
this
property
two
years
ago-
and
it
was
part
of
the
whole
package
that
came
along,
we
as
a
body
unanimously
deferred
it
to
come
back
for
two
weeks
later
and
it
never
came
back
so
again.
I
mean
this
whole
idea
that
there
was
some
complicit
part
on
council.
L
B
B
Now
that
reverts
back
to
the
original
motion
on
the
floor
and
that
was
to
approve
the
committee
of
Real
Estate's
recommendation
to
send
notice
to
the
School
of
Law
that
we
would
not
extend
this
contract
for
the
third
year,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
Those
opposed
no
in
the
same
to
nays
all
right,
the
eyes
habit,
I
think
that
was
it
all
right,
we'll
move
to
adjourn.
Thank
you
all.