The Evans Building will be Spartanburg Community College's new downtown campus. But at what price to the public services that currently use the space?
All great news, right? Downtown will now boast two college campuses, and the Evans Building — formerly a high school and junior high — will once again be used for education. More students will be downtown, and as more businesses open to cater to their interests, we should see the city become more and more vibrant.
But then there’s a sticking point, something barely noticed by the SH-J‘s Glancy, but which should be a major part of the conversation: What happens to the current tenants of the Evans Building?
Currently the county-owned building is occupied by government services such as Voter Registration, Social Services and Veterans Affairs. … Details about purchasing the building and relocating its occupants, along with what that will cost the county, are being worked out.
That’s right, Voter Registration, Social Services and Veterans Affairs, as well as several others, are being booted from the space — which has ample parking and is centrally located — to make room for college kids. While this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s something that should at least be taken into account before any parades are thrown in honor of the new campus.
And what about why this project is happening at all? Who actually benefits from this happening? It’s probably not the public services, after all. Why isn’t this a major part of the story? For instance, here’s something that seems innocuous until you think about it.
“That’s what it’s all about — cooperation between the city, the county, community college, the legislative delegation,” said George Dean Johnson Jr., chairman of Johnson Development Associates, Inc., whom Barnet called a driving force behind the proposed project.
Johnson was a driving force behind this? OK, fine, maybe his motives are purely altruistic. But how many of the now-displaced organizations that currently take up residence in the Evans Building will end up renting space from Johnson Development Associates, a major player in downtown real estate? How will the value of Johnson’s various downtown projects and properties be impacted indirectly by, say, the fact that a college now replaces a building that catered to the poor and the needy? Is anyone in the City or the County taking this into account to protect both parties from conflict of interest problems?
I’m not saying this is Johnson’s motivation, mind you, but asking these kinds of questions are what journalists are supposed to do. I think it’s a really strange oversight by Glancy and his editors not to mention this in an otherwise boosterish story, even in passing.
Or what about the offices that are now scrambling to find suitable spaces? How do their directors feel about this? How will it impact their available funds to relocate? How will services be impacted? Will some have to move out of downtown? Are the City and the County really helping them as much as they say they are?
We don’t know, because if Glancy asked those questions, they didn’t make it into the story. Instead, we just hear one side of it — big suprise — never mind that this development could be a total disaster for the public services in the Evans Building.
Steve Shanafelt
Great questions, Steve. All of them. When reading the article this morning I immediately thought about the Johnson connection, too (good chance the displaced tenants will be renting from him). All my suspicions could be remedied if Johnson would offer these folks a similar (or same) lease in their new digs as they were paying in the Evans Building.
Another thing I found odd re: the HJ article was the idea that this new SCC location would be of use to those “unable or unwilling” to go to the current SCC campus. I understand the euphemism “unable” … community leaders hesitate to directly admit we’ve got a ton of poor folks here who can’t make the short drive to new Cut Rd. But what about “unwilling” … who is this talking about and why would a new building change their will?
I understand the questions raised, and I can’t wait to see the renovation of the Evans building. I just want to point out that SCC’s demographic on the whole isn’t a bunch of “college kids.” Many students are seeking a second degree to further their career. Yes, there are some college age students, but not the majority.
R: Fair enough. Maybe I should have said “students.”
I think R makes excellent points too.
I don’t really share the concern right now that Johnson Development is somehow going to benefit from a scheme to
First of all Johnson does not currently own the Evans Building-the county does, thus the agencies do not pay any sort of lease to Johnson. I don’t work for the city but I have friends who do. From what I know from past conversations, the proposal for a new city hall is still on the table. Of course it has been since like 2007, and I don’t know if they are planning on moving forward anytime soon, but this could be an option. Also I believe that the city already owns some additional vacant office space that could house these agencies.
Steve, you echoed my thoughts as I read this piece. Starting with a pilot program in the Evans Building or some nearby location would have given SCC an opportunity to assess the needs and wants of their potential students. Perhaps such a study has been done, but the SHJ article doesn’t address it.
Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Johnson Developers to seek another building downtown in need of renovation instead of displacing such vital public service agencies at a cost of $5-$6 million?
Thanks for your insight, Steve.
“First of all Johnson does not currently own the Evans Building-the county does, thus the agencies do not pay any sort of lease to Johnson.”
I think you misunderstand the point I’m making. The current tenants of the Evans building will have to leave the County-owned property soon. When they do leave, how many of them will end up renting space, not from the publicly owned County building (and thus paying back into the local government), but from Johnson’s private company? After all, his company owns an awful lot of downtown. He wouldn’t directly benefit from the college moving in, but he would indirectly benefit from all those government agencies needing a place to move into.
Again, I’m not saying there’s anything underhanded happening, I’m just saying it’s an important question that SURELY occurred to someone at the SH-J, and yet all they reported was how great this was, never mind the groups and agencies that will be impacted by this, or why it’s happening in the first place.
OK–actually on the quote you pulled from my comments I was clarifying or responding to Lucas’ comments. I thought it sounded as if he thought the agencies were currently leasing fron Johnson.
I read this today in the SHJ and asked some of the same questions. They(SHJ)glorified the move as an opportunity for more people to attend the community college. I wonder how that works?
I didn’t know until I read Steve’s article exactly where the building in question was located. I am still uncertain just what is to be accomplished with this yet another satellite location or the purposes thereof. The statement about meeting the needs of student unable or unwilling to attend any of the other SCC campuses struck me as odd. I do believe I have seen buses that go to the main campus, so public transportation is available for those that choose attend SCC classes at the main campus.I just don’t understand that supposed reasoning at all.
I do believe there are more questions about this matter then answers right now, and I agree that the SH-J didn’t ask some very important ones.
Sylvie: it seems a lot of people are trying to make this into some sort of a controvesial issue. I’m gonna stand up for the reporter on this one: you guys are wanting him to make his story into some sort of expose on all these speculative controversial issues. If any arise, I’m sure the SHJ will give it some ink. But for now it’s a pretty simple reporting of a story. Sometimes reporters have to pick and choose where they want to poke and prod for a story. Maybe the reporter just doesn’t think a story exists from the angles you all are suggesting it might. Well, that’s my two cents again. Feel free to disagree. Just wanted to give another perspective. Thanks.
“It seems a lot of people are trying to make this into some sort of a controvesial issue.”
You don’t think it’s worth wondering why important area agencies are getting booted from their offices to make room for a community college campus that could go into literally dozens of vacant spaces in the area without displacing anyone? You don’t think it’s worth asking why they would do that, and who would benefit if they did? You don’t think it’s strange that a trained, professional reporter working a local beat didn’t at least address these questions — or even acknowledge them — when writing a story about something this big that will impact several vital area social agencies?
I mean, my background is as an arts reporter and editor — nothing specifically investigative or muck-raking — and even I know this stuff. Again, I’m not saying anything all that strange is going on, but if three other readers say “I was thinking the same questions when I read the story,” that’s because a reporter wasn’t doing their job they wrote the story, and an editor wasn’t doing their job when they let it go to print.
“You don’t think it’s worth wondering why important area agencies are getting booted from their offices to make room for a community college campus that could go into literally dozens of vacant spaces in the area without displacing anyone?”
Just to give Mr. Glancy the benefit of the doubt, he may have very well ask these questions as part of his story. If that is the case, then I am assuming the answer he got is found here where he writes:
Details about purchasing the building and relocating its occupants, along with what that will cost the county, are being worked out.
“The county is working with administrators here to work out a plan to relocate (the current tenants) so that renovations can begin when we get the money,” Terhune said.
He may have then made a judgement call that additional pressing of the issue was not warrented at this point.
I think maybe you are making the assumption that he did not ask these questions. Maybe you should email the reporter and share your concerns with him.
Personally, I think the impact this will have to “several vital area social agencies” is negligable. It’s probably not that big of an issue that the city will find some other place for them to relocate to. I think most people who want a vibrant downtown and a strong college presense are just glad to see SCC expanding downtown. There was a time not that long ago where SCC (then STC) was looked at as a second-class option to Greenville Tech. For those of you that have followed this over the past decade or two, Spartanburg students would often be willing to pay extra to attend Greenville Tech than go to STC. It is a great thing for this community to see SCC growing into its own, and this will be its fourth campus in a three-county area (similar to what GTC offers now). So I guess I choose to look at the positives of this story for Spartanburg than trying to paint some sort of dark pessimistic cloud over it. I guess we’ll just agree to disagree.
Thanks.
Oh I am glad to see that SCC is growing, and that they are wanting to gain accessibility for more possible students. But I have a lot of questions about this new venture.
1, Where is funding coming from? Unless you’ve lived under a rock the past six months then everyone should know that education funding has taken a huge hit in SC. That is an unasked question.
2. What proposed curriculum will be offered? Having a child attending the main campus, I am well aware that even they don’t offer everything for her hoped for degree, which is why she will be transfering to Upstate come January. Most satellite campuses offer condensed curriculum, so classes on the main campus for several courses of study are highly likely. So how is that going to help those I asked about in my first post? (the unable or unwilling to travel to main campus)
3. What elements were in play for the county to sell an asset they were using to sell it?
4. As was already asked where will the current tenets relocate? Does the county or city have empty slots where a move would be feasible with centralization for clients?
I hope this is a win/win situation for the county the city and the college. But I do have my hinky meter up, especially as local politicians here lately have taken several trips down the “lack of good judgement” road.
I also agree that most likely there wasn’t enough print space in today’s issue to cover all there is to this story.
Wow. The lunch and happy hour business downtown is gonna go thru the roof. MAJOR tax revenue to be had with that many college aged students in the downtown area. Way to go Spartanburg. Bring the revenue!
Ryan: I hear your points. I’ve addressed them below.
“If that is the case, then I am assuming the answer he got is found here where he writes: ‘Details about purchasing the building and relocating its occupants, along with what that will cost the county, are being worked out.’”
But that doesn’t address anything. He’s saying “It’ll all be OK,” without saying HOW, and just taking someone’s word for it. His JOB isn’t to take someone else’s word for it, his job is to ask questions, report the facts and hold people accountable.
“He may have then made a judgement call that additional pressing of the issue was not warrented at this point.”
When would it be warranted?
“I think maybe you are making the assumption that he did not ask these questions. Maybe you should email the reporter and share your concerns with him.”
It’s a bit late for that, don’t you think? My concerns aren’t going to change what made it into print today, or what didn’t.
“Personally, I think the impact this will have to “several vital area social agencies†is negligable. It’s probably not that big of an issue that the city will find some other place for them to relocate to.”
Is that how those agencies feel about it? Relocating is expensive, and I’d guess most of them aren’t exactly rolling in cash right now. Who pays for the relocation? Will needed services have to be cut back to fund the move? Will some of them have to move outside of downtown? Will they be on the bus routes so that the often poor people who use them will still be able to access them?
We don’t know. I guess the Spark will have to call them and find out how big of an issue it really is, since the SH-J doesn’t seem terribly interested in asking.
“So I guess I choose to look at the positives of this story for Spartanburg than trying to paint some sort of dark pessimistic cloud over it.”
Actually, I think it’ll probably be a great thing for business and real estate prices downtown. But just because having a college will probably make downtown more pleasant for me and people like me doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t consider the people who will be negatively impacted.
I’m not trying to be pessimistic, but I think the questions I’ve raised are valid, and I certainly didn’t see Glancy asking them in his coverage. If I don’t ask them, and Glancy/SH-J won’t, who will?
“I also agree that most likely there wasn’t enough print space in today’s issue to cover all there is to this story.”
Possibly, although it’s not like they couldn’t have bumped some other story. To be fair, Glancy only has so much time, I’m sure. But even if there was a hint that there were questions and concerns that needed to be addressed, I’d have much less to get worked up about. Instead, the story is about as boosterish as they come. It would have been a simple thing to include those. So I’m left thinking the SH-J’s team isn’t looking at the concerns, that they know about them but aren’t planning on reporting them, or that they know about them and are working on them for future coverage.
If it was Jason Spencer reporting, I’d give them the benefit of the doubt. He’s not, and while Glancy has his moments, I’m more inclined to think is one of the previous two options. In which case, they need to be called out on it.
“Wow. The lunch and happy hour business downtown is gonna go thru the roof. MAJOR tax revenue to be had with that many college aged students in the downtown area.”
This is almost certainly going to be the case. Not to mention the impact on nearby residential rentals, and the increased demand for more affordable eateries, stores and music venues downtown. Between this and the USC-Upstate campus, I’m fairly likely to get a decent downtown cafe to go to as well.
But accountability is still accountability, and I can’t feel good about this project until I know more about it.
Ok, I think that there needs to be more of a long view perspective taken on this whole thing.
I don’t question that Glancy’s reporting and investigation was inadequate. I spoke with him on the phone the day that the article ran because of incorrect information in the article. This building was the city’s white public high school from 1921-1959 and from 1959-1980 it was one of the city’s junior high schools. He had inaccurately reported it was the city’s black public high school, when it would have actually only been open to black students from integration in 1970 until it was closed in 1980. He said the information had come from 3 different websites, but I’ve been unable to locate any with that information. Not that website information should be trusted in lieu of using primary source material or talking with folks knowledgeable about downtown history. Anyway, it’s not the first time the SHJ has had major errors or featured inadequate coverage.
I think what’s missing from this discussion is an understanding about the misuse of this building since it closed as a school in 1980. It was nearly torn down in the early 1980s and was only saved after the county reluctantly agreed to move some of its offices into the building. Even now, most of the building remains unused or underused by the county. Updates have been infrequent and substandard. Along with the Montgomery Building it is a perfect example of an historical/architectural gem that is misused and deteriorating due to mismanagement. Several of the county offices had already moved from the building in the past few years and it looked as if it might be in danger of abandonment before too much time.
GDJ is not the only property owner in downtown Spartanburg and the services moving out of the Evans Building are not beholden to him in any way. Even if Johnson Development were to make money by having services move into properties managed by him, I have no objection because of the numerous and significant benefits that come with the addition of an SCC downtown campus in a landmark of Spartanburg architectural and social history. Such an arrangement would likely be temporary anyway since the city and county continue to work towards building a new facility.
That’s my two cents. I absolutely support the cause of superior journalistic standards in Spartanburg. And there might even be a couple of things you could eek out of this. But this is overwhelmingly a major story of great news for downtown Spartanburg, SCC, local students, local residents, and the city of Spartanburg.
Apparently some of the folks at Voter Registration/elections have some real reservations about this move. Anyone talked to them?
K: Chris has been looking into it.
Have you ever thought this building was falling in to disrepair. An old building is a big expense to maintain. the county can lease space somewhere else and take the capital from the sale for immediate county needs. Plus the added revenue for the downtown area would be substantial. Also the synergy between all the colleges downtown could be very energizing for SCC. You have the new business college going in; yes george dean owns a lot of property downtown and hopefully he will not be personaly benefiting from this move but who knows.
I’m sure all of those are factors, and I doubt the County would be getting rid of the property if it was really economical to maintain. There’s lots of good things about the College moving to downtown, and I don’t really fault Johnson or his company for getting involved. I mean, it’s not like he’s going to make a mint on this, even if the County leases all of their new spaces from his company. It’s more a matter of wondering why these questions aren’t being asked in the first place, and why things are unfolding in the way they are.
For what it’s worth, I think this is a good move for everyone involved. I just want to make sure that someone asks these questions.