South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford tried to undermine Port Royal developer

Governor Mark Sanford enmeshed himself in the state’s $26 million sale of former port facilities near Beaufort last year, first by conferring with a developer who didn’t win the bid, and then by unsuccessfully trying to undermine a different developer’s higher offer by disparaging the man’s reputation.

COLUMBIA, S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford enmeshed himself in the state’s $26 million sale of former port facilities near Beaufort last year, first by conferring with a developer who didn’t win the bid, and then by unsuccessfully trying to undermine a different developer’s higher offer by disparaging the man’s reputation.

Sanford this week acknowledged to The Associated Press he had private conversations with the head of the South Carolina Ports Authority and with a lawyer representing the agency in the deal during which he took aim at the developer who eventually bought the land.

Sanford, a real estate developer himself, said he simply was bringing his professional relationships and expertise to his role as a watchdog for the state’s finances. He denied doing anything in an attempt to steer the sale to a specific developer or interfering in the bidding process.

But the governor’s actions in the run-up to the sale of land give his critics ammunition and could add weight to a lawsuit brought by Carroll Campbell III, an ousted member of the Ports Authority who accuses Sanford of abusing his power.

“Mr. Campbell is concerned about, and has to question, the actions by Gov. Sanford that were taken to potentially interfere with a transaction that was clearly in the best interest of South Carolina; actions that appear to have been taken for personal or political reasons,” reads the suit, filed last month.

At issue was the right to transform the port of Port Royal, South Carolina’s smallest state-owned port. Plans calls for a marina, shops, restaurants and residential villages on the port’s 50 acres, which include a mile of waterfront on the Beaufort River.

The property hit the market twice. The first time, the governor said he spoke with Chaffin/Light Associates founding partner Jim Chaffin as that company vied to buy the property. Sanford said he had no role in the bid and the developer didn’t ask for help. Sanford said he liked the developer’s ideas; plus, he wanted to know as much as possible because he was busy making promises to Port Royal residents over what the project would look like when finished.

“I have my personal reputation riding on the line on trying to stay true to what we promised,” Sanford said.

But bids from Chaffin/Light and a second group fell short of what the Ports Authority wanted, and the property was again put on the market, this time for $27 million, said agency spokesman Byron Miller.

It found a buyer, for $1 million less, in a collaboration of Global Asset Alternatives Llc of Atlanta and developer David Staley’s Main Street Realty of Hilton Head Island.

The sale required the Ports Authority to get the nod from the state’s budget oversight panel, which Sanford heads. But before the Budget and Control Board met, Sanford said he made a round of calls to his real estate friends to find out about the developers, and then he made some more calls.

Sanford telephoned Bill Stern, the Ports Authority’s chairman, and attacked Staley’s personal reputation and professional record. He told Stern that Staley didn’t keep promises and had had problems with the development of a golf course community that offered fairway views for people who bought lots, but those views were later obscured by apartments.

Tom Gardo, a spokesman for Staley, said that was the original golf course plan, but there was never a guarantee and that the land ultimately was rezoned - something homeowners overwhelmingly approved. “There were, in fact, never guarantees on anything. If there were, it would have been litigated,” he said.

He would not respond to Sanford’s personal attack, saying the only priority now is wrapping up the deal.

Stern said he wasn’t concerned about Sanford calling. “Ultimately, we went with the contract. We moved on,” he said.

Sanford also had phoned Neil Robinson, the Ports Authority’s lawyer, knowing he was drawing up the deal documents.

“If you care about that document, the person to call after you’ve had a conversation with Bill Stern, who happens to be the chairman of the board which I had a conversation with, is in fact legal counsel to the board itself because he’s the guy drawing up the document,” the governor said.

When the deal came before the budget board, the governor continued to voice objections but recused himself from the vote.

“You know I want to be very clear on the record on some reservations I have on this developer based on my limited due diligence,” Sanford told the board, according to a recording of the meeting. “It may prove that those reservations are completely inaccurate and wrong. That’s certainly my hope.”

Sanford had a lot more confidence in Chaffin/Light, the company whose founder he spoke with both before and after its bid was rejected.

Chaffin/Light got its start at Sea Pines Plantation and Hilton Head Island and now has projects at Spring Island and Callawassie Island, as well as in Colorado, Florida, Washington and North Carolina.

“I’ve talked to them because they’re incredibly reputable guys in doing development in that part of the world. Seeking their opinion on design; what were their thoughts on what all would fit onto that property, not fit onto that property,” Sanford said. “When I got interested, I started calling different folks down there. I talked to folks I’ve known in the real estate business.”

Jim Chaffin was in Egypt and not available for comment, but company lawyer William Bethea Jr. said Chaffin envisioned a variation of a development plan already approved by the town of Port Royal.

“We thought we had a good plan. We spent a lot of time and money trying to put it together,” Bethea said. “We hope that some of those same visions will be implemented.”

Community Development Corporation of Beaufort Llc also bid for the land. While that firm included donors to Sanford’s gubernatorial campaign and the governor said he knows one of them, he said he never spoke of the port to that group.

Nevertheless, critics such as Senate Minority Leader John Land, a Manning Democrat and lawyer, said the governor could be open to a lawsuit from a developer contending he interfered in the deal.

“I would say he grossly overstepped his bounds,” Land said.

Campbell, the ousted Ports Authority board member who is the son of a popular former governor, contends his concerns over Sanford’s involvement became a factor in his removal by Sanford from the board. When that happened, the governor’s office cited opposing views on privatizing ports and the appearance of a conflict of interest because Campbell runs a political and government consulting firm.

“The governor’s conduct in this situation is troubling to me,” Campbell said in an interview for this report.

Sanford said any criticism of his involvement in the Port Royal deal is politically motivated and pushed by Campbell.

http://www.beaufortgazette.com/developing_stories/story/191400.html

EDITORS NOTE: Dude, chill!

Sanford is taking too many pleasures, he took pleasure over at SLED with the SLED Chief Stewart, and he took pleasure interfering with a Court case down in Beaufort.

I say he is having way too much fun.

He served, by a law that his owned father helped establish, at the pleasure of the Governor.

He no longer pleased the Governor because of major policy differences, not to mention the possible conflict with his lobbying firm. He is fired.

He now cries like a baby that just got his candy stolen and talks about loyalty to his father. Sounds like sour grapes from a trust fund baby to me.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I’m sorry, but I’m afraid the author makes a baldly fallacious argument.

All people are biased, whether they can bear to admit it or not (in fact, by denying bias, one admits bias in favor of oneself). The anonymous fallacy is nothing more than an expression of the desire of the reader to quickly and efficiently categorize the writer according to the reader’s biases. It is effectively an ad hominem attack, but an even flimsier variation than the usual; instead of discounting the content of a given statement based on the identity of the author and his [real or alleged] flaws, it is based on his *presumed* flaws, with that presumption based *solely* on his *lack* of identity — a logical absurdity.

In short: it is preemptive character assassination.

It is true that to verify every statement on its own merits may slow the progress of a debate, and for that reason it may be advantageous to identify oneself if you are reasonably confident that doing so will not hopelessly derail the conversation with ad hominem and other associative fallacies, but experience shows us that all too many discussions suffer this fate — or worse — particularly online.

The bottom line is that a given statement is either true, false, or indeterminable [given available information]; there is rarely a need to know the identity of the participants in a discussion to determine which of these conclusions apply, except perhaps as unique aliases to avoid confusion, and unless the subject at hand entails questions of a personal nature.

The author includes quotations which suggest that unless we can identify the writer, an online discussion will inevitably devolve into a cesspool of trolling. It is true that trolls are annoying, but their posts can be easily spotted and overlooked. The solution to mostly harmless annoyances — such as mosquitoes — is to ignore them if possible, and swat them if necessary. Those of us who prefer to remain anonymous (whenever possible) do so *because of* the tendency of trolls to derail an otherwise meaningful conversation. By remaining anonymous, little to no ammunition is available to the trolls, leaving only the substance of the discussion to assail. And as we all know, trolls are generally not equipped to participate at that level.

Nowhere in any known variant of the scientific method does it state that the personal identities of those providing the data must be known in order to validate the authenticity of that data. It is a fallacy to suggest such a necessity. Please stop doing it.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Now, if only you were so bad that you would put your name on your post.