This is a proposed $290 million, 200 acre, urban village divided into two sections at the intersection of Highway 14 and I-85 right on the Greenville/Spartanburg County line in Greer: Dillard Creek Commons Power Center and Creekside Village Lifestyle Center. Combined they will total 1.32 million square feet and 3,600 parking spaces. That's bigger than Haywood Mall in Greenville. It could create up to 2,000 jobs and offer parks, shops, food stores, a cinema, hotel conference center complex, restaurants, office space, department stores, nature exhibits, recreational activities, furniture stores, and automotive, marine craft and aircraft retail according to the developers. Its timeline goes through 2010. The power center is expected to include a Bass Pro Shops and possibly a Super-Target. The GSP Airport Environs Planning Commission is supervising the project and it is being developed by Collett and Associates. Exact site location: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/assets/gif/BS63922228.GIF

Dillard Creek Commons Power Center (100.6 acres)-
• office buildings
• Bass Pro Shops and possibly a Super-Target
• retail space
• a movie theater
• department stores
• a few restaurants
• hotel conference center complex

Creekside Village Lifestyle Center (68.6 acres)-
• "a number" of residences
• retail shops
• restaurants
• hotel(s) possibly

Other details-
• Ten outparcels on the property along Highway 14 will remain unused to allow for future growth
• "Several" acres will be left as green space
• The State Legislature did not approve $1 million in the budget to create a frontage road to connect the project to Brockman-Mclimon Road, but it will not affect the proposed project
-----

A public announcement regarding the project is expected around mid-summer: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070504/GGN/705040301/1004/NEWS01

Rumors have been swirling that anchors such as Super-Target, Belk, and JC Penney will locate here. The Spartanburg Herald-Journal says local officials are trying to lure Bass Pro Shops to anchor the development: http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070301/NEWS/703010357/1051/NEWS01 and
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20070622/NEWS/706220347/1062

Other articles regarding this proposed development:
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007704040388

http://m.greenvilleonline.com/detail.jsp?key=23934&rc=ne&full=1

New proposals keep you busy, g-man. You must admit it, though. Without all those Red Bull's you wouldn't be able to stay up all night and post the news :lol: Thanks for doing this. Personally, I cheer for you guys :okay:

Great News! While everything cant be done downtown, the stuff thats not being done downtown is great planning!

^^^I do believe it has a trickle affect that affects downtown. It will draw in more people which will be attracted to downtown and want to live there.

I-85 is on overload.

I-85 is on overload.

:runaway:

:runaway:

Reminds me of Dubai. :tyty: :lol:

I-85 is on overload.

That would be why they call 85 "the boom belt".

^Well then, let's get some light rail up and running and get the party started. ;)

^^ :dance:

:banana: Coincidence? I think not. Confirmation Bass Pro Shops is most likely heading here. I LOVE this state: http://www.goupstate.com/article/20070622/NEWS/706220347/1062

^^Information on this bill:

A.
Section 12-61-6520(14) of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
“Tourism or recreational facility” also means an aquarium or natural history exhibit or museum located within or directly contiguous to an extraordinary retail establishment as defined below. An extraordinary retail establishment is a single store located in South Carolina within two miles of an interstate highway or in a county with at least three and one-half million visitors a year, and it must be a destination retail establishment which attracts at least two million visitors a year with at least thirty-five percent of those visitors traveling at least fifty miles to the establishment. The extraordinary retail establishment must have a capital investment of at least twenty-five million dollars including land, buildings and site prep preparation costs, and one or more hotels must be built to service the establishments with establishment within three years of occupancy. Only establishments which receive a certificate of occupancy after July 1, 2006 qualify. The Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism shall determine and annually certify whether a retail establishment meets these criteria and its judgment is conclusive. The extraordinary retail establishment annually must collect and remit at least two million dollars in sales taxes but is not required to collect or remit admission taxes.”


B.
Section 12-21-6590 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
(A) The Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism may designate no more than four extraordinary retail establishments as defined in Section 12-21-6520(14), and for purposes of this section, sales taxes must be substituted for admissions taxes wherever admission tax appears in this Tourism Infrastructure Admissions Tax Act. For purposes of this section, additional infrastructure improvements include any aquarium or natural history exhibits or museum located within or directly contiguous to the extraordinary retail establishment which are dedicated to public use and enjoyment under such terms and conditions as may be required by the municipality or county in which they are located. Additional infrastructure improvements shall also include site prep, construction of real or personal property, parking, roadways, ingress and egress, utilities and other expenditures on the extraordinary retail establishment which directly support or service the aquarium or natural history museum or exhibits. The certification application made under this section must be executed by both the extraordinary retail establishment as well as the county or municipality.
(B) Prior to the completion of an extraordinary retail establishment, an entity may request that the county or municipality in which the facility is located provide an application for conditional certification to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. The Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism may grant conditional certification to the entity as an extraordinary retail establishment based on reasonable projections that the facility will meet the requirements of Section 12-21-6520(14) within three years of the certificate of occupancy. If the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism grants the conditional certification to the entity as an extraordinary retail establishment, it shall forward the approval for conditional certification to the department. The department shall notify the entity and either the county or the municipality, as applicable, of the approval.
An applicant obtaining conditional certification as an extraordinary retail establishment under this section and satisfying the requirements of conditional certification by the dates provided therein, shall be deemed to satisfy all of the requirements of this article pertaining to qualification as an extraordinary retail establishment for the duration of the benefit period. The entity shall be deemed to constitute a major tourism or recreation facility under Section 12-21-6520(12) and shall be entitled to all of the benefits of this article for the duration of the benefit period without any further certification requirements. This subsection shall not be construed to allow an applicant to receive the benefits provided in this article prior to satisfying the requirements of the conditional certification and of

Section 12-21-6520(14).
The Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism shall develop application forms and adopt guidelines governing the conditional certification process.

Almost everybody on UP is against tax incentives for BPS or Cabela's. I'm not one of them. :)

The only developments, imo, that should get tax incentives are those that bring high-paying jobs to the state. Tourism does NOT bring the kinds of jobs we need in South Carolina. We have enough minimum wage-type jobs as it is. Bass Pro Shops? Give me a break.

The only developments, imo, that should get tax incentives are those that bring high-paying jobs to the state. Tourism does NOT bring the kinds of jobs we need in South Carolina. We have enough minimum wage-type jobs as it is. Bass Pro Shops? Give me a break.

Can I just say that I love this state and tax incentives for BPS. Yes, i'm one of the few who think BPS and Cabela's should get tax incentives, but I love their stores and really want one to be built here. :)

G-man, what does it add to the economy of South Carolina for those 2 retailers to locate here that would make them worthy of tax incentives. If you like them so much, shop there online.

G-man, what does it add to the economy of South Carolina for those 2 retailers to locate here that would make them worthy of tax incentives. If you like them so much, shop there online.

Nothing, except for tourist dollars. You have your opinions and I have mine. I like going into their stores and looking around and all of the neat stuff including the aquarium they have. Can't really do that online can you? ;) They won't build here without tax incentives and that's why I think the state should provide them to these two companies. I know pretty much nobody on here will agree with me, but that is just my opinion and i'm sticking to it. :) Here is a really good story on how tax incentives work for Cabela's and BPS: http://www.icsc.org/srch/sct/sct0606/index.php

Somebody give g-man some love. :cheer:

g-man. we LOVE you!!! You bring us the news and they are always fresh :lol:

^^Like my fish. :lol:

g-man, you know that penguins eat fish, right? :lol:

^^ :lol: The legislature WILL override this. They did the same by a vote of 99-5 for the North Charleston Cabela's: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070626/BUSINESS/706260367

So, it's either going to be a Bass Pro Shops or Cabela's: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070626/NEWS03/706260375 Here is the bill: http://greenvilleonline.com/assets/pdf/BS77722626.PDF

Updated story on this: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070626/NEWS03/306260005

While I'm happy for you guys getting this, I would be very, very leery of the word "urban" being attached to this project. For one thing, it's straddling an interstate intersection and already advertising interested big-box retailers... not a good sign. Also, Collett & Associates is in the middle of building a semi-suburban complex adjacent to uptown Charlotte that has been largely panned for failing to deliver on promises of "urbanism". So really what you are most likely looking at is a large suburban development with some kind of mid-rise in the middle.

If I were you, g-man, I'd be writing some letters to the right people demanding that the city enforce whatever zoning pressure it can in order to make sure this isn't the beginning of a satellite city.

^But that's exactly what they want.

I think sometimes we mistake "mixed-use" for "urban." Any type of big project being developed adjacent to an interstate is going to cater to the car in some way, shape, or form. Hopefully it will be built so as to incorporate some form of rail transit or at least BRT in the future.

^But that's exactly what they want.

I think sometimes we mistake "mixed-use" for "urban." Any type of big project being developed adjacent to an interstate is going to cater to the car in some way, shape, or form. Hopefully it will be built so as to incorporate some form of rail transit or at least BRT in the future.

I'm not sure if you're confusing this with another development or not, so I'll leave that at that.

ANY development caters to the car "in some way". Regardless of location.

This is in Greer and it's not even in Greenville County. What do you really expect?

Isn't incorporating some form of mass transit in the future all we can hope for in any SC metro?

I agree with GvilleSC that pretty much every development in SC is in some form designed with auto traffic in mind. I definitely would not call this development anything even remotely similar to "urban" though. A great example of a truly urban development next to an interstate is the one (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=480262) planned by McChesney at The Point.

I'm not sure if you're confusing this with another development or not, so I'll leave that at that.

Ummmm, no, but most of them these days are more or less alike.

ANY development caters to the car "in some way". Regardless of location.

I disagree. I think there's a difference between accomodating the automobile versus catering to it. Most downtown developments do the former, while suburban developments overwhelmingly do the latter.

Isn't incorporating some form of mass transit in the future all we can hope for in any SC metro?

Of course.

I'm not even sure why I said urban. :nuts: I should of probably put lifestyle village instead. :lol:

Governor vetoes incentive bill designed to lure Bass Pro Shops to this development: http://greenvilleonline.com/assets/pdf/BS77951628.PDF

Expect the legislature to override his veto most likely today: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/ENT06/706280342

I disagree. I think there's a difference between accomodating the automobile versus catering to it. Most downtown developments do the former, while suburban developments overwhelmingly do the latter.

Of course.

you didn't specify the difference in your comment: "In some way". What's really the difference between accomodating and catering to vehicles? An urban development does both. Parking deck accomodates the car, and the orientation of the development to the streets caters to the car and vehicular traffic.

And as for this becoming a satellite city, Greer already IS a satellite city and that's where the development is taking place.

^^All because the thread title says "urban." :lol:

:nuts: There's not enough news stories on this, so I have to add another one: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/NEWS01/706280351/0/NEWS01

According to the Greenville News, this is a BREAKING NEWS ALERT: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/NEWS01/70628027 House overrides veto 104-2. WOW. :)

you didn't specify the difference in your comment: "In some way". What's really the difference between accomodating and catering to vehicles? An urban development does both. Parking deck accomodates the car, and the orientation of the development to the streets caters to the car and vehicular traffic.

If a development caters to the automobile, that pretty much means that it is designed around the automobile first and foremost, and may even be hostile to other forms of transit. That would be your typical mall or "lifestyle center." A development that accomodates the automobile feasibly provides for patrons to arrive by automobile and by other means of transportation, including (even primarily) by foot.

According to the Greenville News, this is a BREAKING NEWS ALERT: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/NEWS01/70628027 House overrides veto 104-2. WOW. :)

When have we ever failed to extend incentives for just about anything? This isn't surprising.

There is now pretty much a 100% chance BPS will come here: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/NEWS01/70628044

:nuts: There aren't enough news stories on this, so I have to add another one just to make everybody happy: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070629/NEWS01/706290318

What's really the difference between accomodating and catering to vehicles? An urban development does both. Parking deck accomodates the car, and the orientation of the development to the streets caters to the car and vehicular traffic.

The orientation of buildings toward the street has nothing to do with cars; cities were built that way at least 6,000 years before the car was invented. And in general, I would hardly say that ordinary urban development caters to the car. If anything, most urban districts are designed to discourage car use if possible.

The orientation of buildings toward the street has nothing to do with cars; cities were built that way at least 6,000 years before the car was invented. And in general, I would hardly say that ordinary urban development caters to the car. If anything, most urban districts are designed to discourage car use if possible.

I would disagree. And before cars, they catered to whatever it was that moved people around. Which also happened to use their streets. Same concept. Catering to cars doesn't have to mean a giant parking lot with prime front row parking. When a building is built in an urban environment the way it addresses the street usually is done in a way to maximize exposure of what it has to offer. A marketing tool. I think the lack of "car exposure" is one reason why streets often fail when they convert a traffic street into a pedestrian mall.

^^Who cares? This development is going to happen, so the debate is over.

I know this thread is dedicated to a project and not on a general topic, and I do not wish to upset my suburbanite friend g-man by distracting from the main subject, but GvilleSC has a very good and valid point. Times have changed and in order to bring people downtown - or anywhere else - we must supply adequate parking. I cannot imagine how in the earth I would walk from my house to downtown if it takes me 15 minutes to get there by car. Try that when it's painfully hot and humid. You bet I will get behind the wheel and drive, and when I get there I want to find a spot for my car... in a safe place. Ideally, parking decks solve many of the challenges we face when trying to create a nice urban feel. If not underground, those decks can be placed in the center of a block - assuming it is feasible - or simply include ground floor retail and other amenities. It can be done in a way that the urban feel is not destroyed, but decks are also very expensive to build. Surface parking is mostly inadequate when we try to create destinations for ALL residents.

Just my 2 cents...

^^I just don't like people hi-jacking my thread like I do with yours. :lol: Oh and I cannot go post on this topic without another news story on this development: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070630/NEWS01/70630011 :nuts:

My penguin is going to eat your fish if you hijack threads again :lol:

Hopefully, the legislators will find a way to prevent the loss of small businesses to the bigger 'fish', like they caution at the end of the article. I say 'yes' to big investments, but there are limits.

I would disagree. And before cars, they catered to whatever it was that moved people around. Which also happened to use their streets. Same concept.

No, not the same concept. Buildings erected in dense, urban areas are simply not designed the same way as buildings erected at the periphery of the suburbs. Urban design might include a parking deck, because that is a major form of transportation in the world today, but that is not at all the same thing as constructing a sprawling complex off an interstate exit with big-boxes separated by four-lane roads and surrounded by acres of parking. One is urban design, one is not. They're the "same concept" in the same sense that a single-family home is the "same concept" as a skyscraper.

No, not the same concept. Buildings erected in dense, urban areas are simply not designed the same way as buildings erected at the periphery of the suburbs. Urban design might include a parking deck, because that is a major form of transportation in the world today, but that is not at all the same thing as constructing a sprawling complex off an interstate exit with big-boxes separated by four-lane roads and surrounded by acres of parking. One is urban design, one is not.

Exactly. They are erected in different fashions and they are designed in different fashions, but both still incorporate the car in some way. I'm not saying that something suburban is urban or vise versa. They deal with cars in different ways, but they do both deal with cars and neither are totally desined without thought of vehicular traffic and parking.

Exactly. They are erected in different fashions and they are designed in different fashions, but both still incorporate the car in some way. I'm not saying that something suburban is urban or vise versa. They deal with cars in different ways, but they do both deal with cars and neither are totally desined without thought of vehicular traffic and parking.

And this is what I was getting at in explaining the difference between catering to the car and accomodating the car. Suburban development does the former, as there is barely any thought of any other mode of transporation but the automobile. For urban developments, however, the car is but one viable form of transportation among others.

^^Quit hijacking my thread or i'll get Raleigh-NC's penguin to eat you. :lol:

Can't go two days without having another story on this: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070703/GGN/707030303/1004/NEWS01

Opinion article on BPS tax incentives for this development: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070708/OPINION/707080314

Oer 95% of the state legislators voted to override the governor's veto. I don't think protesting this is going to do any good. It's all over the news:

http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070712/NEWS01/707120317/1003/BUSINESS

http://goupstate.com/article/20070712/NEWS/707120348/1044

http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/jul/12/retailers_rise_up/

Hello? What happened to all the thread hi-jackers? :lol: Anyways, here is a good story on the tax incentives proposed for BPS here and Cabela's in North Charleston: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/11/ap3905406.html

Where are the update photos? :rofl:

Where are the update photos? :rofl:

Even Charlotte is getting in on this debate: http://www.charlotte.com/business/story/196769.html They built it in one day Raleigh-NC. :lol: Taken with cell phone yesterday:
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r263/peacockdude/0715071641.jpg


http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r263/peacockdude/0715071634.jpg

Is that "debate" or "de-bait"? :rofl:

^^Tux should know. :lol:

:lol: Here are your update pics Raleigh-NC. This is the site where this development will go. Pics were taken on the frontage road located on the south side of I-85 near Highway 14:
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r263/peacockdude/Picture199.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r263/peacockdude/Picture200.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r263/peacockdude/Picture201.jpg

g-man, I truly loved that first photo!!! Thanks for the "updates" :lol:

Good place for it if it gets built...you think it will?

^^I think so. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't with the tax incentives and everything for it. :)

This development is starting to gain traction now. I have been in email talks with Collett and Associates. Still a lot of work has to be done before anything is announced, but expect a Belk's, Bass Pro Shops, and Super Target.

Bass Pro Shops... Now, that is a place I can see you visiting often ;)

^^:D I will definitely try to get a job there if they build it.

:banana: :dance:


Bass Pro could be hooked by year's end

Published: Friday, September 21, 2007 - 10:34 am
Updated: Friday, September 21, 2007 - 10:37 am

By Nan Lundeen
STAFF WRITER
nlundeen@greenvillenews.com

GREER - A $295 million mixed-used development slated to be bigger than Haywood Mall proposed near the airport off Interstate 85 could be on the hook by year's end, according to Greer Mayor Rick Danner.

"We're still in negotiations," Danner said. "We hope to have a public announcement by the end of the year."

Danner wouldn't confirm that the project would be anchored by Bass Pro Shops, but that name has been pitched into the public venue by state legislators that earlier this year passed an "extraordinary retailer" tax incentive package that they said was aimed at luring Bass Pro.

GreenvilleOnline.com asked Spartanburg County Council member Rock Adams, who represents the area, if requests for a fee in lieu of taxes package has come before the council for the project.

Adams said, "We've had no meetings concerning that other than some of the people that are trying to get this thing off the ground over there. Some of the council members have met with those individuals one-on-one."

Adams is positive about the project to be located at the southeast corner of I-85 and State 14, which is the Greer exit. Preliminary plans call for hotels, retailers, a cinema, and nature exhibits.

It's expected to bring in $400 million in sales per year and attract tourists.

"That's going to be a good thing for the area over there, no doubt about it," Adams said.

Developer spokesman and Greer lobbyist Matthew Van Patton couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

Adams said, "I understand that they'll probably be coming by the end of the year. They're trying to get everything lined up so they can present it to council."

Utility truce could unlock Golden Box
Greer and Laurens utilities expect to announce an agreement Tuesday

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007 - 12:31 pm
Updated: Monday, September 24, 2007 - 12:37 pm

By Nan Lundeen
STAFF WRITER
nlundeen@greenvillenews.com

Greer and Laurens utilities expect to announce an agreement Tuesday that would resolve a battle over lucrative electric service to an area south of Interstate 85 in Spartanburg County called the ‘golden box.’

Wryley Bettis, Greer Development Corporation board chairman, said, “Clearing it up should pave the way for development down there whether it’s residential or commercial, and if people desire to have the services of the City of Greer, we can work with them.”

Both parties have agreed to the dismissal of the suit in U.S. District Court, without prejudice, which means if the boards of directors can’t come to terms, Laurens could re-file the suit, according to Greer Commission of Public Works attorney Lane Davis.

However, only minor details remain, Davis said.

Laurens Electric Cooperative Inc. spokesman Jim Donahoo said he expects the cooperative’s board to act on the agreement tonight, and if approved, the terms could be released in the morning. Meanwhile, Laurens Electric has no comment, he said.

The agreement is on Greer CPW’s agenda today.

Laurens Electric a year ago stepped onto the playing field when it intervened in a lawsuit that Greer CPW had filed against Spartanburg County, alleging the county had reneged on an agreement to give it sole rights to provide sewer service to the golden box.

The area involved lies between Interstate 85, South State 101, State 296 and the Enoree River, an area court documents describe as ripe for development.

The sewer suit was settled out of court.

Under terms of the sewer agreement, Greer maintains its rights to require annexation of contiguous property, provided it is new development or property that has changed hands, before its utility provides a sewer hookup.

Traditionally, sewer service is costly to provide and earns little revenue, but electric power is a money-generator.

Laurens Electric gave financial support to Property Owners Against Greer Annexation, which tried to block Greer from annexing golden box properties by annexing them into Reidville.

A Spartanburg circuit judge ruled the Reidville annexations invalid last February.

Greer’s position is that it only annexes when 100 percent of property owners request it.

Most of the corner at I-85 and South State 14 where a $295 million mixed-used development legislators have said may be anchored by Bass Pro Shops already lies inside Greer city limits. Greer CPW will provide all utilities to that project, to Spartanburg Regional Healthcare System’s medical campus and the shopping center across State 14 from the campus, according to CPW General Manager Jerry Balding.

Jobs, homes could follow utility deal near airport
Greer, Laurens Electric settle suit

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007 - 8:14 pm

By Nan Lundeen
STAFF WRITER

The area across Interstate 85 from Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport could see new jobs, new shopping and new homes as a result of local utilities reaching an out-of-court settlement on who will provide power.

The Greer Commission of Public Works board on Monday afternoon approved the settlement. Laurens Electric Cooperative Inc.’s board approved it Monday evening, according to its spokesman, Jim Donahoo.

Under the 20-year agreement, CPW would buy power from Laurens Electric to serve the areas of the ‘golden box’ which it annexes, and some areas would remain Laurens Electric’s territory, according to CPW General Manager Jerry Balding’s brief description during a CPW meeting.

Carter Smith, CEO of Spartanburg County Economic Development Corp., said, "As the proper infrastructure gets built into those areas, it will provide an opportunity for very positive growth there."

Wryley Bettis, Greer Development Corporation board chairman, said, "Clearing it up should pave the way for development down there whether it’s residential or commercial, and if people desire to have the services of the City of Greer, we can work with them."

Laurens Electric a year ago intervened in a federal lawsuit that Greer CPW had filed against Spartanburg County, which alleged the county had reneged on an agreement to give it sole rights to provide sewer service to the golden box.

The area involved lies between I-85, South State 101, State 296 and the Enoree River.

The sewer suit was settled out of court, giving Greer the right to require annexation before it provides sewer hookups to new development on property contiguous to its borders.

Laurens Electric said it had made capital investments in the area and helped financially support Property Owners Against Greer Annexation, whose efforts failed.

Greer CPW is providing all utilities to a $295 million mixed-use development at I-85 and State 14 to Spartanburg Regional Healthcare System’s medical campus and the shopping center across State 14 from the campus, according to Balding.

JC Penney, Belks, Bass Pro Shops, and Super Target are currently in negotiations to be a part of this retail center.

Sewer service for Bass Pro development? No problem

Published: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 11:25 am

By Nan Lundeen
STAFF WRITER

GREER – A $105 million upgrade to a regional wastewater treatment plant at Pelham provides plenty capacity for growth through 2015, including a proposed development that could be anchored by Bass Pro Shop, according to an official.

Despite plans for shops, hotels and a cinema, Ray Orvin, executive director of the Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority, said sewer service to the proposed development at the Greer exit on Interstate 85, which is expected to be bigger than Haywood Mall, would be no problem.

Instead, apartments and housing projects are the big sewer service users, he said. “That’s where you use a lot of capacity.”

City officials have said they expect a formal announcement of the $295 million project by year’s end. However, Greenville businessman Edward “Ned” Sloan has challenged a bill providing state tax incentives in the South Carolina Supreme Court .

Bass Pro is considered to be one of the extraordinary retailers targeted in the legislation. The outdoor outfitter is expected to attract tourists and generate $400 million in sales annually.

Meanwhile, Jerry Balding, general manager of Greer’s Commission of Public Works, said of an upgrade to its Maple Creek wastewater treatment plant – “This’ll probably carry us another five to seven years, based on our growth.”

City Council has approved a taxpayer-guaranteed $13.6 million loan to upgrade the plant.

But if growth “goes as fast as we think it will,” another substantial investment will be needed, Balding said.

A person I know very well has the site plan for this project, but unfortunately can't share it with me. However, expect this project to be announced in December with site plans, renderings, and tenants.

Sanford says he'll keep up fight against Greer tax deal
Governor opposes proposed incentives to bring Bass Pro Shops to Upstate

Published: Friday, November 2, 2007 - 2:00 am

By Rudolph Bell
BUSINESS WRITER

Gov. Mark Sanford on Thursday called again for repeal of a state law that creates tax breaks to recruit big retailers such as the Bass Pro Shops store a developer is said to be trying to bring to Greer.

Following a meeting with the heads of five state agencies at the International Center for Automotive Research, Sanford promised to raise the issue again when the General Assembly reconvenes in January.

"We will be bringing that one back up again," the governor said.

Sanford called the meeting, which focused on economic development, as part of his administration's preparations for the next state budget. He said the Clemson University research park in Greenville was a good place to have the meeting because the Upstate is South Carolina's industrial center.

Attending were the leaders of the departments of Commerce; Transportation; Insurance; Parks, Recreation and Tourism; and Labor, Licensing and Regulation.

About 50 people listened to the discussion in the Carolina First Gallery, including state Reps. Gloria Haskins of Greenville, Eric Beddingfield of Mauldin and Garry Smith of Simpsonville.

The governor and the agency chiefs discussed budget requests and a wide range of other issues, including the retailer incentives.

Lawmakers first passed them in 2006 to assist an effort to lure a Cabela's store to North Charleston. They tweaked them earlier this year to make them useful in recruiting a Bass Pro Shops to a site at the intersection of State 14 and Interstate 85.

Sanford vetoed the legislation both years, but lawmakers overrode his vetoes.

The law allows a local government to use half of the sales tax that would come from a so-called "extraordinary" retailer over 15 years to build infrastructure for the retailer or a developer. The retailer must invest $25 million, attract two million visitors a year and remit $2 million in sales taxes. Also, a hotel must be built within three years to service the retailer.

Sanford and Commerce Secretary Joe Taylor have argued that retailers put stores where they have a customer base and don't need to be induced with tax breaks to go to a particular location. That differs from other company investment, such as a factory, which might operate just as well in various locations.

The incentives also favor big retailers over their mom-and-pop competitors, Sanford and Taylor contend.

But proponents of the incentives say big stores such as those operated by Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops draw visitors -- and sales tax revenue from out of state.

Taylor also called for reform of another economic development policy: a county classification system that provides certain tax incentives in 27 of South Carolina's counties but not the other 19. Lawmakers singled out the favored counties years ago, believing they were vulnerable to the closing of military bases and other federal installations.

Taylor also said the Commerce Department should coordinate the spending of $2.3 billion in South Carolina each year for rural and community development, though he's not an "empire builder." He also said the Commerce Department would not ask for any additional money next year.

"We're good to go," Taylor told Sanford.

I agree with Sanford on this. If we're going to throw incentives at corporations, they should at least be creating jobs that pay decent wages. "Drawing visitors" is no justification. SC already draws a lot of visitors, as we're one of the top tourist states in the nation. I'm not sure, but I don't think tourism has gotten us to the top of the heap (not to mention that tourist-related jobs don't pay well).

^^I voted for Sanford but don't agree with him on this issue. It doesn't matter what we think though. At least 90% of the legislatures voted yes to override his veto. :) You can tell what I think about your opinion Krazeeboi just by looking at my avatar. ;) I support more tax incentives for BPS and Cabelas. I would rather have my money go towards that than the war we are obviously not winning.

Here we go again. :nuts: Give up Sanford. You're not going to win this battle. That's for sure.


Sanford restates opposition to tax incentives for retailers

Published: Monday, November 12, 2007 - 4:41 pm
Updated: Monday, November 12, 2007 - 5:05 pm

By Rudolph Bell and Nan Lundeen
STAFF WRITERS

Gov. Mark Sanford called again today for repeal of special tax breaks designed to lure big retailers, such as the Bass Pro Shops store a developer is said to be trying to bring to Greer.

Sanford outlined his arguments against the incentives law, which lawmakers approved over his veto, during a press conference at Foothills Fly Fishing, a small business on North Pleasantburg Drive. It was a near repeat of a press conference he staged at Brown’s Bait and Tackle in Duncan in July.

The small business locations highlight Sanford’s contention that the special measures for big chains are unfair to mom-and-pop stores that compete with them.

The governor also argues that retailers put stores where they have a customer base and don’t need to be induced with tax breaks to go to a particular location. For that reason, the state Commerce Department has never given tax incentives to retailers, he noted.

If Bass Pro Shops gets special tax breaks, lobbyists will try to secure them for more and more retailers, Sanford predicted.

“Katy bar the door in terms of our overall tax policy if this thing stands,” he told reporters.

Proponents of the measure say so-called “extraordinary retailers” such as Bass Pro Shops make the market bigger for everybody.

In Greer, an extraordinary retailer would increase the customer base by about 700,000 visitors per year, said Reno Deaton, executive director of the Greer Development Corporation, the city’s economic development organization.

“Small businesses would indeed be competing, but they would be competing for a customer base that is nearly four times larger than the existing customer base,” Deaton said.

Sanford has had a rocky relationship with the Legislature, and he acknowledged Monday that lawmakers were not likely to heed his call to repeal the law unless they came under political pressure. Drumming up that pressure was the purpose of the press conference, Sanford said.

“We’re asking the people to make their voice heard,” he said.

Sanford listed ten states he said have either scaled back or declined to approve similar tax breaks for big retailers -- Maine, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Indiana, Minnesota, Georgia, Kansas, Texas, West Virginia and Michigan.

“What they found was, the numbers didn’t pan out,” Sanford said.

South Carolina’s law could be repealed without any harm done since it has not yet been applied to any retailer, Sanford said.

Lawmakers first passed the incentives in 2006 in an effort to lure a Cabela’s store to North Charleston. They tweaked them this year to make them useful in what legislators have indicated is an effort to recruit a Bass Pro Shops to a site in Greer at the intersection of State 14 and Interstate 85.

Sanford vetoed the legislation both years, but lawmakers overrode his vetoes.

The law allows a local government to use half of the sales tax that would come from an extraordinary retailer over 15 years to build infrastructure for the retailer or a developer. The money can be used to prepare the site, install water or sewer, build roads or buildings, or develop an aquarium or a natural history museum.

The extraordinary retailer must invest $25 million, attract two million visitors a year and remit $2 million in sales taxes. Also, a hotel must be built within three years to service the retailer.

Bass Pro Shops has not made any announcement about a new store in South Carolina.

Larry Whiteley, a spokesman for the Springfield, Mo.-based chain, said mom and pop stores thrive within 10 blocks of its 47 stores nationwide.

“We’re bringing more outdoor enthusiasts into the area for them to take advantage of,” he said. The smaller retailers become specialists in the types of things Bass Pro doesn’t offer, he said.

“I have seen stores close up, too, but who knows if those stores were going to close up before we ever announced,” he said.

Whiteley said whether to offer tax incentives in exchange for more jobs and tax revenue is up to individual state and local governments, “but it does work. It’s revitalized areas of the country where we’ve opened stores.”

Greenville businessman Ed “Ned” Sloan has filed a lawsuit challenging the tax incentives law and other measures on the grounds they contain unrelated subjects. But a ruling in the case isn’t expected until next year.

Staff writer Tim Smith contributed to this story.

Sanford fishes for retraction of tax breaks for large retailers
Greer trying to lure Bass Pro Shops for anchor store

By Trevor Anderson-Spartanburg Herald-Journal
Published: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 | Updated: 6:20 am

With outdoor outfitter Bass Pro Shops eyeing a massive development in Greer, Gov. Mark Sanford on Monday renewed his call for the repeal of tax breaks for "extraordinary retail establishments."

During a news conference at the Foothills Fly Fishing shop in Greenville, Sanford promised to fight the legislation again when the General Assembly reconvenes in January.

"Fundamentally what it's about is whether or not people in government should be picking winners and losers in the marketplace," Sanford said. "The law hasn't yet been exercised … we still have a window wherein we could repeal it without harm being done to anyone."

In June, the state Legislature passed the bill, which was loaded with incentives designed to spur economic development in the region. Sanford vetoed the bill June 27, but the Legislature voted a day later to override him.

The law gives "extraordinary retail establishments" a 50 percent refund on sales taxes for 15 years to offset infrastructure costs. To be deemed an "extraordinary retail establishment," a business must attract at least 2 million visitors a year, generate at least $2 million in sales taxes and invest at least $25 million. Additionally, the retailer would have to attract at least one hotel to the area.

Sanford argued Monday that the law is at odds with free enterprise and called it egregious to South Carolina and the notion of fairness to carve out special incentives to draw big-name retailers.

"If it's left in place, great harm will be done to this business (Foothills Fly Fishing) and literally thousands of other small businesses just like it," he said.

Undercuts small retailers-
According to Sanford, the bill would give Bass Pro Shops more than $9 million over its first five years in business, which it could then use to undercut small businesses by offering rebates or special sales on the same merchandise.

"It's kind of a slap in the face," said Chuck Patterson, co-owner of Foothills Fly Fishing. "I don't think one retailer should be given priority over others who have operated here for years."

In Spartanburg County, elected officials pushed for the tax incentives in hopes they could be used to entice Bass Pro Shops to anchor a $295 million, 175-acre development near I-85 and Highway 14 in Greer.

House Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith, R-Spartanburg, said the bill was originally focused on luring businesses to multi-county industrial parks on the boundaries of counties, such as the Upstate Corporate Industrial Park between Spartanburg and Cherokee counties.

"I think it's regrettable that it has not only become the subject of a lawsuit but the subject of a debate over political gain," Smith said, referring to Greenville businessman Ned Sloan suing on the grounds that the legislation violates the state's prohibition against having several unrelated items in one bill. "No one wants to see businesses close, but over time, that's what happens. (Bass Pro Shops) is the type of place that people are excited about, and that's the way our economy works."

Mixed message-
Other proponents of the bill say Sanford is sending a mixed message - that South Carolina isn't open for business to mega-retailers, such as Bass Pro Shops, that have the ability to draw visitors and sales tax revenue, as well as other companies, from out of state.

"It's confusing to say one business is OK and another one isn't," said David Cordeau, president and CEO of the Spartanburg Area Chamber of Commerce. "People want to locate in places that have a complete retail community. There's a preponderance of evidence that shows if you can bring in these types of magnet retail establishments, then other businesses will pop up around it."

Sanford's stop in Greenville was part of a two-week, 30-city tour that kicked off last week. Sanford will be at Blue Ridge Christian Academy in Landrum at 8:15 this morning and will make an 11 a.m. visit to Buford Street Ace Hardware in Gaffney.

On another piece of news: Sanford invites G-man for a fishing contest and changes his position on tax breaks afterwards.

On another piece of news: Sanford invites G-man for a fishing contest and changes his position on tax breaks afterwards.

:rant: :lol:

Do Sanford has something against the upstate and why did we vote him in?

Do Sanford has something against the upstate and why did we vote him in?

He's from Charleston. Of course he's against the upstate. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. :yes:

This project need's to get rolling.

These are really starting to pop up, these Lifestyle Centers. This will be great for the local economy.

SHUT UPPPPPPPPP. SHUT UPPPPPPPP.

SHUT UPPPPPPPPP. SHUT UPPPPPPPP.

:weird: :dunno:

SHUT UPPPPPPPPP. SHUT UPPPPPPPP.

Ok............. Was it the term "lifestyle center"?

Ok............. Was it the term "lifestyle center"?

Nah...it was that signature of yours in red. :puke:

Republican