Housing has become a central and hotly contested issue in next week’s Republican primaries for the Lexington County Council — races that, absent a Democratic nomination, will likely decide who will make up more than half of the elected leadership starting next week of the province. year.
Despite tensions between more aggressive and more conservative approaches to building new homes in parts of the fast-growing county, the candidates all say they are fighting for the future of Lexington County. But sitting councilors claim homebuilders have made a concerted effort to influence the outcome of the election and the future growth of the province.
Late last month, four sitting members of the Lexington County Council, along with Council President Beth Carrigg, accused the Building Industry Association of Central SC of funneling “dark money” into the campaign through a recently formed nonprofit, Protecting Lexington’s Future.
That organization — founded solely by Building Industry Association CEO Bin Wilcenski — has distributed ads and mailers supporting challengers in the four races in which an incumbent is present.
The nonprofit, along with some of the challengers vying for council seats, are questioning the council’s decision in recent years to limit housing development in unincorporated areas of the county to four homes per acre. The construction group wants the province to at least allow 12 homes per hectare again, the previous limit.
It’s not clear how much money Protect Lexington’s Future has funneled into the council race because South Carolina currently cannot require campaign spending from outside groups to be reported.
The association hosted a meeting for its members late last month at The Dales Biergarten and Bottle Shop in Springdale, announcing that “approved candidates” Michael Bishop, Brent Munnerlyn, Todd Cockrell, Doug Leonard and Jason Resnick would be in attendance. Incumbents Glen Conwell and Todd Cullum, whose districts are not up until 2026, are also on the list, as are District 4 Councilmember Debbie Summers, who is not seeking re-election, and state Sen. Katrina Shealy.
The association also organized a fundraiser for Resnick in April.
One candidate, the Bishop hopeful from District 1, confirmed to the state that he had accepted $1,000 and a letter of support from the Building Industry Association, which has not yet responded to requests for comment. The latest campaign contribution reports available through the SC Ethics Commission do not yet indicate the money was given to Bishop.
“The industry supports me because they know I want to communicate,” said Bishop, who previously served as mayor of the city of Springdale in Lexington County. He emphasized that the County Council must work with builders to create a plan that represents their interests while ensuring that the county’s future housing growth proceeds responsibly.
Bishop also emphasized that his acceptance of the association’s money does not mean he will comply with their wishes.
“I said, ‘If you think I owe you a favor, I won’t do it,’” he said of his conversation with the association. “I’ll be the same man. Does not matter what. But I do think (the council) has done a pretty terrible job of sitting down with the builders and developers and working with them. I hear complaints all the time that they submit plans, and it takes six months or more to get the plans back. It shouldn’t be that complicated.”
Bishop further accused his opponent, incumbent Councilman Scott Whetstone, of taking contributions from developers. The councilman’s ethics filings show he has received donations from two companies involved in trucking, transportation and sorting, but not developers. Whetstone did not respond to requests for comment.
How to manage residential development in the future is certainly on the minds of Lexington County residents, with grassroots organizations like Save Lexington SC and Develop Lexington County responsibly advocating for more conservative growth that doesn’t further burden already busy roadways or disrupt the small town hollows out. feel this is key to why they love the area.
“Save Lexington SC calls on city and county councils to work together for citizens’ interests to protect our infrastructure and better manage growth, including working with Statehouse lawmakers to fund road projects and update annexation and impact fee laws to give local administrative bodies better tools to do their work for citizens and companies,” the organization said in a statement.
Develop Lexington County Responsibly often shows up at council meetings in decent numbers, with most wearing blue shirts to show their united position that growth must be controlled. The group chose a side when reached by the state.
“We appreciate what all sitting members of the Lexington County Council have done for the citizens of Lexington County,” the group said in a statement. “Their continued efforts to strengthen our province’s infrastructure and better manage growth will go a long way toward ensuring our province’s responsible development in the future. We wish them the best in the elections.”
Conflicting views on growth
The Council has taken several steps in recent years to control growth, including:
-
New developments of more than ten houses were limited to no more than four houses per hectare with a minimum spacing of six meters in 2021.
-
In 2022, the municipality has frozen new subdivision permits.
-
More recently, the City Council has introduced concurrency requirements – meaning services such as schools, fire, ambulance and law enforcement must confirm they can handle new developments before they are built – along with limiting the amount of land that can be cleared at one time.
At the same time, the County Council remains at odds with local councils, after late last year they canceled a 45-year-old agreement to maintain roads within their boundaries, in a bid to add a new provision to that agreement requiring new residential developments in Annexed areas must meet the standards set by the province.
The election challengers who spoke to the state varied in their positions on development, but the majority advocated giving builders and developers more of a seat at the table in the future.
“I have nothing against the builders, but I think it’s a bunch of foolish nothings,” said Clifford Fisher, who is challenging Councilman Bimbo Jones in District 5.
He alleged that several sitting members of the Lexington County Council have accepted donations from builders in the past, including some who participated in last week’s “dark money” press conference. “When did the builders become bad people?” Visser said. “Everyone goes to their house.”
Fisher said it was the county’s land needs that led him to run for the County Council seat in the Red Bank area.
“I’m the only person who has ever built roads, who has experience in mapping land and building them, so I have some of the skills needed in the community, and have the time to do them now that I’m retired am,” he said.
While he said he had never heard of the construction group Protect Lexington’s Future, which was the subject of council members’ accusations, he wouldn’t rule out accepting donations from the construction industry himself.
“I would take money from anyone,” he said. “I’ve had a lot of friends, not builders, but customers of mine who have been kind enough to support me, and I’ve had a variety, and I’ve been blessed financially.”
Bishop, who ran to represent the rural areas around Pelion, Gaston and Swansea, argued that if the province slows development too much, new home construction could push just over the border into neighboring provinces, causing the loss of potential would mean additions to the tax base while still having more cars on the roads.
“All you’re doing is pushing them to the suburbs, and we’re still going to have all these problems with no money,” he said.
District 3 candidate Munnerlyn — who interrupted the council members’ press conference, shouted accusations and got into an altercation with several attendees — said limiting the number of homes to four per acre could hinder the local economy, which helps no one. He said he has not and will not take any money from the Construction Industry Association. He wants to unseat Councilman Darrell Hudson in District 3, which covers parts of Lexington and Lake Murray.
District 4 candidate Leonard is wary of the consequences that growth has for the province. He is running for the seat representing Springdale and parts of Lexington, which is vacant because Councilman Summers is choosing not to run again.
“We’ve had virtually unbridled development and no connection to infrastructure,” Leonard said. “So I think you have no choice but to make sure that infrastructure and development are connected.”
“You have to make sure that if you’re going to issue 7,000 building permits, you have the capacity in terms of roads, in terms of EMS, in terms of all the infrastructure, water sewerage, to handle that. ,” he added.
The broker said he did not take any money from the Builders Industry Association. He advocated for the county to create a comprehensive plan that takes residential and commercial growth into account. Leonard said builders and developers should have a voice in shaping that plan, but the municipality must set expectations that are best for residents and those who want to bring residential developments to the county will have to adapt.
“The construction sector is only going to dance to the music that the province plays,” he said. “They can’t do anything that isn’t outlined in the ordinances and laws that the province establishes. So the municipality has to deal with it.”
Leonard’s opponent, Cockrell, responded to The State with a statement when contacted about his stance on development and contributions.
“I am not the person to comment on this matter as I have chosen not to accept PAC money or money from special interest groups,” Cockrell said in a statement. “My financial information has been filed with the SC Ethics Commission as required and is visible to the public.”
Resnick — who is challenging Charli Wessinger in District 6, which covers Chapin and parts of Irmo and Lexington — also made a statement.
“These allegations are nothing but a desperate attempt by a desperate politician trying to divert attention from her disastrous record,” he said. “Ms. Wessinger failed to plan for growth, failed to protect our residents and failed to protect our tax dollars. No amount of political spin will change these facts and the voters know it.”
