Political

County Councilmen Accusing Each Other of Grandstanding and Playing Politics

The iconic English nanny Mary Poppins would be proud of Greenville County. What became her famous nostalgic symbol may soon become Greenville’s colorful tax burden among other budgeted items. This past Tuesday, June 6th, the County Councilmen gave their approval for second reading of the proposed budgets for 2024 and 2025, which received some reductions at this meeting.

I will be the first to admit that when it comes down to the actual details of the budget, I am no expert, and I would not even dare try to get into those details and sway my readers one way or the other. And it sounds impressive that Greenville County has not raised taxes in 28 years, despite our property taxes saying otherwise. So, while everyone else is arguing the financial details, let us consider observable factors seen at this meeting that may provide some insight into what is going on behind the scenes.

One hour before the meeting, it became obvious what strategy Greenville County will play when they vote on raising taxes at second reading. The line to speak on agenda items was already stretching down the hall and all those who were against raising taxes came a bit late even if it seemed early. Because approximately one hour before the meeting, county staff, and public safety employees such as EMS, firefighters, and county deputies had already filled most of the room. Most of those in opposition had to stand outside the county chambers in the foyer and halls.

There was an atmospheric mood that if you did not support the budgets with their increased taxes, then you do not support our public safety staff, first defenders, and those holding the blue and red line. Tina Belge from Greenville Housing Fund and a former county employee said that 83% of the budget is going to county staff. She had all county employees stand which filled most of the room. She said that county growth has outgrown the incoming new residents. She said the residential increase and housing development was not an excuse, and the result of more revenue coming in via new development and an increase in population was not a reason to avoid raising taxes.

County officials and supporters who spoke in favor of raising taxes were strategically ready for this meeting. It became clear early that they would also use a political strategy to create a perception that those in opposition not only were voting against first defenders, but did not care for the homeless, poor, and needy as well. All individuals who spoke in support of the proposed budgets highlighted the importance of affordable housing projects and used it as a reason to vote in favor of the budgets.

It was observed by some that many of the individuals advocating for the proposed budgets have a personal stake in its success, leading to opposition claiming that their support is self-serving rather than a genuine concern for affordable housing.

During the budget hearing when those who spoke against the proposed budgets, the support became clear from the shouting and praising, which could be heard outside the county chambers who were watching and listening via streaming, as well as the claps and shouts of approval from the few who were able to get in the chambers. It was clear that those who were opposed were making themselves heard. A few times, Chairman Dan Tripp threatened those in the chambers to refrain from clapping and outbursts and even gave one gentleman a final warning who gestured his agreement with the rebuke.

Former State Senator David Thomas, as one of the speakers, congratulated the county councilmen for not impeding the super growth of Greenville County and a job well done for not going up on taxes for almost 30 years. He also said that Greenville has seen economic growth and we haven’t had to do a tax increase until now. His question was, why now? He then asked, “Why did you have to go back three years, gentlemen, and pick up the optional tax increase? Why didn’t you do it three years ago when you saw a problem develop?” He further stated, “It is only now, this is interesting, and this is why we had three years that you had the option of going backward and picking up that tax. This is why we have a 23% increase. What are the unintended consequences … it’s going to be more tax than you think and have been told, I believe. Now, y’all will have to figure this out yourselves. But I think the number is going to be the people that have taxes, it’s not going to be $40 a house … you could be paying over $1,000, it depends on the value of the house.” He went even further and said, “We have seen prices of homes double and triple in just a year or two. So, when reassessment comes in 2025, gentlemen, watch out … you better figure this out.”

During second reading of the county's 2024 budget, Councilman Butch Kirven presented the long-awaited vote. However, just in case the budgets were approved, Councilmen Steve Shaw and Stan Tzouvelekas proposed a list of amendments aimed at reducing the tax burden for Greenville County's taxpayers.

Steve Shaw requested in one amendment that if the council does approve any affordable housing, the language would be that the veterans of the US Armed Forces and/or the State of South Carolina National Guards would be given priority over non-veterans. This did not go over well with other members of the council and after calling roll call and coming to Councilman Chris Harrison for his vote, he questioned if this was even legal. Councilman Liz Seman interjected that she had the same concern. Some individuals opted to wait and gather more information in writing before proceeding, to ensure that such action is legal and possible.

Seman accused Shaw of putting the councilmen in a position to vote against veterans. She said that even if we are the ones that allocate the funds, we are not the ones who can vet who gets priority. The county attorney recommended getting true legal advice before voting on this amendment. Shaw requested to add law enforcement and first responders to the amendment. Chairman Dan Tripp ruled his amendment out of order to put law enforcement and military before others and it would need to be directed to GCTA who is our housing partner. No vote was taken.

While Steve Shaw was presenting his amendments, Councilman Benton Blount spoke up as if there were other amendments expected that would handle the same things Steve Shaw was presenting. Shaw made it clear that if Blount knew of other amendments coming that dealt with the same things that he was presenting, he would be glad to reserve his time until those are voted on. But Chairman Tripp encouraged Shaw to go ahead and move forward with his amendments.

As County Council went through Councilman Shaw’s amendments, one amendment hit a sour spot with Councilman Ennis Fant. Shaw presented an amendment that would shave $25,000 from the Human Relations Commission budget which is according to Shaw about $300,000 budget each year for the agency.

Before Ennis Fant could even get a word in, Councilman Chris Harrison said he appreciates what Councilman Shaw is doing, but accused him of playing politics and not even doing what is right. Harrison implied that Shaw was grandstanding for those who oppose the tax increase that would come with the 2024 budget approval by nickel-and-diming his way through his amendments.

Then Councilman Fant spoke up and expressed his disdain for Councilman Shaw’s current amendment. He defended the Human Relations Commission. He accused some of his colleagues of dehumanizing and politicizing the commission. After accusing some of his co-councilmen of constant attacks on the LGBTQ community for everything, he also accused them of getting on hate radio shows expressing their hate language for LGBTQ.

Immediately, Fant stood up out of his seat and held up a rainbow umbrella, which apparently the Human Relations Commission has spent thousands of dollars on, and loudly defended them saying that as soon as his colleagues saw the rainbow colors, they assumed it had something to do with LGBTQ. Fant says the rainbow umbrellas were purchased for the Human Relations Commission’s celebration of 55 years of fair housing. He demanded Shaw to try to open it and see the colors and see what it says – referring to the 55 years label. Shaw started accusing Fant of attacking him personally and his motives. But Chairman Tripp defended Fant and said Shaw was out of order.

Proving a point, Shaw asked why are we raising taxes if we can afford to purchase rainbow umbrellas for thousands of dollars. Better yet, this author asks why are we raising taxes if we can afford to build elaborate new buildings for County government.

Councilman Blount defended Shaw and said it is not nickel-and-diming, it is going in and looking at line items which we should be doing before we get in front of a crowd. He said this is why it is hard for him to make decisions because it is stuff we should have already been working on before second reading. The amendment did not pass.

After being accused by Fant of not thinking of single parents and putting military and law enforcement in front of available housing development, Shaw shared how his mother was a single mother and raised him and his siblings by herself. He took offense that they would accuse him of putting single mothers at the back of the list to pander to a political view.

Now here is where it gets interesting. After Councilmen Shaw and Tzouvelekas took all this time going through their amendments, amendments that other councilmen showed frustration with, it was revealed that another group of council members had already basically done the same thing and purposely held back their recommendations. Is this what Councilman Blount was referring to earlier?

After Councilman Rick Bradley quotes Philippians 4:6, he introduced on behalf of the following council members, Chairman Dan Tripp, Butch Kirven, Ennis Fant, Chris Harrison, Allen Mitchell, Liz Seman, Mike Barns and himself, to lower the millage from 11 to 7 mil for the 2024 and 2025 proposed budgets. He began to go through the list of items of the comprehensive amendment as follows:

1. Reduce the proposed General Fund millage rate by 3.0 mills
2. Increase Building/Code Enforcement Revenues by $2,947,465
3. Increase transfer from the Workers’ Compensation fund by $500,000
4. Increase transfer from the Infrastructure Bank by $1,000,000
5. Reduce Health Insurance premiums by $3,000,000
6. Reduce transfer from the General Fund to Capital Projects for the following projects:
   • Information Technology - $400,000
   • Register of Deeds Historical Documents - $500,000,
   • Sheriff's Target System - $800,000
7. Reduce the Solid Waste millage rate by 0.5 mill
8. Increase Solid Waste Revenue by $1,500,000
9. Reduce the Natural Resources Fund by $2,000,000 for the Conestee Dam
10. Reduce Parks, Recreation, and Tourism millage rate by 0.5 mil
11. Increase transfer from the Hospitality Tax fund by $1,500,000

The all-inclusive amendments for both 2024 and 2025 made by Bradley, which apparently were already prepared by eight out of 12 councilmen passed 8-4. They could have easily taken Councilman Blount’s earlier advice to present this amendment so Councilman Shaw and Tzouvelekas would not have wasted their time and those who were attending.

Both the 2024 and 2025 budgets got approval at second reading by Councilmen Tripp, Barnes, Harrison, Mitchell, Seman, Fant, Bradley, and Kirven. Shaw, Blount, Tzouvelekas, and Russo voted against the budgets.

Chairman Dan Tripp went out of his way to thank Councilman Bradley for his work with the county administrator after having shown disgust with Councilman Shaw and his attempt to do basically the same thing, who, not knowing that the eight councilmen had worked together without the others knowing it, would have receded his amendments.

We must ask Chairman Tripp and Councilman Harrison when they accused their fellow councilman Steve Shaw of playing politics, who is really playing politics here? Shaw and Tzouvelekas were only doing what apparently eight other councilmen had already done. Is this what county politics has come to? Why not include Councilmen Shaw, Tzouvelekas, Blount, and Joey Russo? And why let them go on with other amendments when you already had a plan in place?

Why include the two Democrats and a clear RINO to be part of your inner group and leave out the most Conservative members? With this move, we are seeing a clearer picture of what is going on within Greenville County Council. Sounds familiar and much like Columbia’s Republican Caucus regarding the SC Freedom Caucus members, doesn’t it?

We had Republican council members lose recent elections because they catered to Democrat Ennis Fant. What is it with Ennis Fant’s spell over Republican council members? A question many Republican voters are becoming curious about. But one thing is for certain, while Ennis Fant who has a habit of not paying his own taxes jumps up for joy for his rainbow umbrellas, primary voters will remind the Republican members of Greenville County Council that how they affect their budgets will determine how it will affect them at the next primary elections.

Don’t ask me how to pronounce it, but who knows, maybe soon we will hear Fant and his newfound friends create a loyalty pledge against the other council members and call it, "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"!