Here’s why some opposed that Panthers deal, and why York County approved it anyway.
Editor’s note: The York County public hearing on an incentive deal for the Carolina Panthers was held via Zoom meeting due to COVID-19 coronavirus restrictions on public gathering. Due to an inability to confirm names of all callers, the Herald will attribute comments to callers without using identities.
Most of the more than two dozen callers in a York County virtual public hearing who opposed a tax incentive deal for the Carolina Panthers, weren’t basing their opposition on football.
Some called the deal underhanded politics, or criticized having so important a meeting entirely online. Most criticism targeted more than 800 acres of land that, for now, doesn’t have anything to do with the coming Panthers headquarters site.
Callers said they owned some of the land or had family who did. Callers said those landowners weren’t notified, that the property showed up in the agreement at the last minute.
“Our personal properties are going to be impacted,” said one caller, who said she and family live in the Sturgis Road area.
Yet to the majority of York County Council who ultimately approved the deal April 20, the Panthers plan didn’t present near the threat to property owners that callers feared.
“A lot of the fear comes from the unknown and not necessarily the facts,” said Councilman Joel Hamilton.
Deal details
The county incentive deal sets up fees instead of taxes for the planned Panthers development. It reduces the commercial tax rate, used to set the fees, for decades. The property owners will pay the 4% a homeowner pays, rather than the 6% for a typical business.
The property won’t be subject to bond referendums for the length of the agreement.
The more than 200-acre team headquarters site on I-77 is part of the deal. So is Waterford Golf Club, also owned by the Panthers. Few callers or council members focused on those properties.
Many people on the 880 acres also involved in the vote said they learned they were part of the decision just days before the final reading.
“This whole thing scares me with no more information than we have,” one caller told council. “I’m at the point where this whole project scares the life out of me.”
Callers expressed fears that land would be taken, or annexed into Rock Hill without their consent.
“I’m just wondering why the property owners were not informed of this issue,” one caller said. “This is very sneaky and underhanded.”
County leaders say many of the fears are unfounded.
“I hate that we have muddied the water with some additional parcels,” said Councilwoman Allison Love.
The initial team proposal would’ve made any property within a five-mile radius subject to the agreement. Council negotiated it down to a one-mile radius by second reading. Before the third and final reading, the county had the Panthers narrow down the list of properties to specific sites.
“The parcels were in the agreement since we started, but they were in a different format,” said David Hudspeth, county manager.
Hudspeth said the team hasn’t indicated any plans for property beyond what it already owns.
“I don’t know of any specific plans,” he said. “They have not shared any of those with me.”
Listing properties in the agreement doesn’t mean landowners will see change.
“You do not have to sell your property if you don’t want to,” said Councilman William “Bump” Roddey.
If anything, council members say, there is reason to suggest property owners may want to sell. They can keep the land if they want, or choose to sell it under rules that make the land attractive to developers.
“That property is probably worth more now since it’s been identified as an area of interest for the Panthers,” Roddey said.
Love said a meeting with property owners needs to happen to explain details, but the Panthers aren’t taking, and can’t take, property. Also, annexation into Rock Hill requires consent by property owners, or at least a majority of property owners if it’s a larger area. Options, Love said, sit with landowners.
“The owners of those properties are in the driver seat,” she said.
Councilman Robert Winkler, who chairs the council committee that routinely works through fee agreements, voted against the Panthers incentive deal because residents in the more than 800 acres would benefit so greatly it would be unfair to other parts of the county.
“That puts the rest of the county at a disadvantage,” Winkler said.
“(Panthers owner David) Tepper has a built-in advantage with this.”
To rush or pass
Winkler said an industrial park in York, Fort Mill or anywhere beyond the Panthers development would have a hard time competing when Tepper could offer the same development opportunity, but with the fee and other incentives rather than traditional taxes.
Chairman Michael Johnson, who joined Winkler and Councilwoman Christi Cox in voting against the incentive deal, likewise felt the Panthers package could pick winners and losers for some time in the development game.
“Having the Carolina Panthers in York County is a good thing,” Johnson said. “What they do on that 230 acres is a positive thing. Great things are going to happen there. I just don’t believe this was done the right way.”
Johnson said he believes worried property owners who learned at the last moment their land would be incentive-eligible, might not have an issue with it given time and perhaps a public meeting to discuss it. A meeting the ongoing coronavirus makes difficult.
“They deserved a day that we’re not going to give them,” Johnson said.
Johnson recognized complaints largely dealt with the unknown.
“They’re asking for time,” he said. “They’re not asking not to be in it. They’re asking for time.”
Councilman Joel Hamilton has the Panthers site in his district. He voted for the incentive, and said any place in the world would want to have an opportunity like it. Hamilton said the alternative to what may happen with the property if the Panthers don’t come — continued vacant land or perhaps a new industrial or manufacturing site — made the call easy.
He said he also believes owners in the 880 acres may well agree when they understand property won’t be condemned, taken, annexed against the landowner’s will, or anything of the like.
“No one is taking anyone’s property,” Hamilton said.
