Town of Glen Alpine's $5K hold on two downtown buildings sparks pushback from residents

Glen Alpine officials’ decision to make a $5,000 nonrefundable payment to hold two downtown buildings for potential purchase has sparked tension between town leaders and residents, who question the use of taxpayer money and accountability for properties in alleged poor condition.

Board members voted during a special meeting to issue a $5,000 due diligence payment to William Keith Lawson, owner of 108 and 110 Linville St. The payment secures an exclusive period for the town to investigate the properties before deciding whether to move forward with a purchase.

Several town officials were not present for the meeting, including Mayor Kevin Herron, Alderman Jason Miller, Town Attorney Rob Denton, and Town Administrator Crystal Carswell, though they were briefed on the issue, according to Mayor Pro Tempore Luke Boone.

Town leaders said the move is part of a broader effort to revitalize downtown Glen Alpine and support long-term economic development. The payment comes as the town plans to start work with North Carolina Commerce’s Phil Boggan to develop a five-year strategic plan.

“We discussed the possibilities of looking into those properties and what it would take to secure those properties, because every building, except for a part-time bicycle shop, is now uninhabited,” Boone said. “If the town doesn’t buy it, we’re basically spending $5,000 to explore what works and what doesn’t work with the property.”

The board has not yet decided what types of businesses would occupy the buildings if purchased. The intention is to seek grant funding to rehabilitate the buildings and eventually sell or lease them. Alderman Reid Scott added that the town owning the buildings would unlock grant opportunities that would not be available to private owners.

The buildings, in their current shape, would need a lot of work, according to Boone.

“Right now, it’s a deficit to the town, and we’re trying to make it an asset,” Boone said. “We’re not trying to put anything that would diminish anybody’s property values, or anything that would cause an obligation or a burden on any of the citizens.”

Alderman Chad Wykle added that additional information about potential funding and redevelopment plans is expected when Boggan attends the board’s next regular meeting on April 13.

However, some residents weren’t sold, and expressed concern, mostly about the amount of the nonrefundable payment.

The town issued notice Monday for a special meeting Wednesday “for the review and execution of a real estate contract.” On the day of the meeting, Herron released a public statement outlining the town’s intent to spend six months evaluating the buildings and pursuing grant funding before deciding whether to move forward with a purchase.

Boone read Herron’s statement aloud since he wasn’t in attendance.

“His words, not mine,” Boone said. “Don’t shoot the messenger.”

The meeting opened with a public comment period, though residents asked for clarification about the purpose of the meeting before speaking.

“I don’t have all the clear details of what we’re all here to discuss, and I want to make sure I’m on the right page,” said Betsy Campany, who lives on Linville Street.

Boone asked those in attendance if they would rather hold public comments until after the board has a chance to discuss the issue, and they agreed. However, after the board discussed the deal, Boone moved straight to a vote, reopening the public comment session after the decision was already made.

Not long after reopening, the public comment period turned into a back-and-forth discussion between residents and board members. Typically, public comment periods allow community members 3 minutes to speak individually while board members listen without responding.

“It’s very difficult for me and others, and probably some of the community who didn’t show up tonight, to understand how a community of 2,000 residents is going to benefit from using our tax dollars to pay William Lawson to hold his dilapidated property for the town to consider purchasing, and then spend additional money, of our money, to correct his dereliction of duty and maintaining his properties that he currently owns,” Campany said.

She added that grant money often comes with matches and specific requirements, and that she doesn’t believe Glen Alpine is in a position to pay for matches and additional costs to tackle roof issues, and the possibility of black mold and decay.

“We shouldn’t give him (Lawson) $5,000 to hold a building that he doesn’t have listed for sale, a building that would technically, if the right person walked into it, would condemn it,” said Wesley Kelley, who lives in a home on Linville Street that was previously owned by Lawson.

Former Alderman Tim Suttles, who previously requested deannexation of his farm on Lail Road, spoke up, too, telling the board they just gave $5,000 away, and that it’s not for the benefit of the town’s residents, but for the board.

“What do you think I’m going to do with it,” Boone asked, at that point acknowledging that the typical rules for public comment periods were not being followed.

“The meeting’s over. This is just friends talking,” Boone said, though the public comment period was still ongoing.

Alderwoman Sheila Perkins, who owns a small business in Glen Alpine, said she considered purchasing one of the buildings, but it was going to cost $30,000 to fix the roof.

“If it’s a bad business deal for an individual, what makes anyone think it’s a good business deal for a small town,” Campany said.

“I just want something viable for the town. I understand your concerns, but if you think anybody’s gonna buy that property, as y’all have already said, they’re not, so either we sit here and watch it just decline and fall apart or we do something,” Perkins said.

Alderman Chad Wykle spoke up in defense of the due diligence payment and what the future could look like for the properties if grant funding is awarded to the town. He expressed confidence in North Carolina Commerce’s support of Western North Carolina communities, specifically with Boggan leading work in other towns nearby.

“I’m all for this town being viable, being beautiful, returning it to its glory, but as town aldermen, you have a financial responsibility to the people of this town and their tax dollars, and I think that they need to be spent wisely,” Campany said. “I think it’s a moot point because you’ve already decided to spend it but just know I’m watching.”