DENMARK -- Sounds of birds break the silence of the warming April afternoon as the water of the South Fork of the Edisto River flows slowly to its destination.

Wood ducks light upon a log and scatter when spied.

Another feathered friend takes to flight at the sound of approaching humankind.

A food plot created for the attraction of wildlife and swampland serves as home for various aquatic creatures on the property owned by John W. "Johnny" Williamson III and his wife, Kathryn "Kaki" Williamson.

"It is home for every species of wildlife in the state," said Williamson during a tour of the couple's property.

Deer, birds, foxes, beavers, turkeys, snakes and a variety of flora and fauna have called Williamson's property home for years.

But recently so has an unwelcome guest Williamson fears will not only ruin the beauty of nature but also the lives of some of the neighboring homes that dot the landscape along the river.

"You can't go 3 feet without picking something up," Williamson said as he approaches what appears to be an empty bottle of antifreeze on the now-closed Ness Boat Landing situated on his property.

Trash from Clorox bottles to oil bottles to tires visibly dot the area surrounding and leading to the landing.

"A lot of it is liquor and beer bottles," Kaki said.

Kaki relates a story about activity evidenced at their private property gate before they closed access to the landing.

"It would seem like people would just pull right up there and put all their trash out of the car or they used the bathroom," she said. "We would get out to open the gate and there would be human feces ... It was nasty. We were like -- enough!"

Williamson, a former Bamberg County councilman, closed the boat landing in June 2006 after concerns not only over litter but also reports of break-ins and vandalism of surrounding homes.

The landing is located off Highway 70 (Binnicker Bridge Road) near Denmark.

A neighbor had his kayak stolen and another his 14-foot jon boat, Williamson said.

"They took it down the river, sank it and turned it over and sank the motor," he said.

The ''nastiness'' turned tragic in the middle 1980s, Williamson said, noting that somebody was killed in the area in a shooting incident.

"You think we would be sued? No doubt about it!" Williamson said.

And so are the many reasons Williamson chose to close the boat landing, which had become popular with fishermen but also was a breeding ground for antisocial activity.

"It is not the fishermen," Williamson said. "The problem is the uncontrolled access and what is going on there."

Documentation

backs his case

The closure of the landing, however, has met much controversy.

Orangeburg County Council and County Attorney D'Anne Haydel are seeking to restore public access to the boat landing through exercising the government's power of eminent domain, also known as condemnation.

County officials say the law gives public bodies, such as council, the right to take private property as long as it is for public use. The boat landing is defined as such a use, county officials say.

Council voted in November 2006 to pursue condemnation not of the entire property but of the portion that had been used under the right-of-way and boat-ramp lease agreement signed Sept. 8, 1975, by the Georgia-Pacific Corp. and the Orangeburg County Commission, forerunner to County Council.

County officials say the lease agreement it has on hand is by far the most formal and detailed of the county's agreements for public use of privately owned property, such as boat landings.

The contract notes that an agreement would automatically renew for one year on each anniversary date unless either party gives "the other party 60 days written notice thereof prior to any anniversary date thereof."

But Williamson said there is another lease agreement signed in September 2001 by then-property owner Leon Newman.

In addition to questioning the allegation that a boat landing falls under public use, Williamson has a certified letter sent by his counsel and received by the county relating to cancellation of the lease, as well as a copy of the 2001 contract signed by Newman and Donnie Hilliard, who was the county administrator at that time.

The contract notes that Newman leased the property to the county subject to five stipulated terms and conditions. One of the conditions stipulated for termination of the lease is ''if Leon B. Newman sells the land upon which the aforesaid premises are situated."

Terry Poole of Motley Rice LLC law firm, representing the Williamsons, wrote a letter addressed March 1, 2006, to Orangeburg County Administrator Bill Clark citing Section 4 of the contract as the reason for the lease terminating, noting "as successors to in title to Mr. Newman, now wish to terminate immediately the lease agreement under Section 4 of the agreement which states 'Leon B. Newman shall have the right, in his sole discretion, to terminate this agreement ... if Leon B. Newman sells the land upon which the aforesaid premises situate.''

The letter ends by requesting Orangeburg County take the ''necessary steps to remove all signs concerning the public use of the boat ramp, parking and launching area and close the right of way leading ... to the parking area."

"The guy we bought it from made the county sign the lease in 2001," Williamson said. "That is one of the key defenses in eminent domain our attorney will use. When the county gave their word they are like you and me; if we give our word, we expect to live by it."

Haydel said while she is now aware of the Newman lease, the county assumes the lease is terminated because of Williamson closing the landing. In previous T&D reports, county officials said they had not received a notice to cancel the lease or had not seen the Newman contract.

"The interpretation of it (the lease) is not really an issue anymore," Haydel said. "What is at issue now is moving forward to have a boat landing open on the South Fork of the Edisto River that will serve the people of our county."

"The priority remains the same for the county so it can have the authority or control on behalf of its citizens," Haydel continued. "The citizens are telling us this is the best place to have access."

Williamson said even prior to the March 1, 2006, letter, he contacted the county administrator's office on the day he bought the property on March 15, 2005.

Williamson said he told the office he could not assume liability for the property and, if the county wanted to keep the landing open, they would have to contact him.

"I did not hear anything from them," he said.

Williamson said he called back in the early part of April 2005, spoke to Orangeburg County Administrator Bill Clark and was told the county would get on the issue.

"They never responded," Williamson said, explaining that was when the Poole letter was sent to the county. "And they never responded to that (the letter.)"

Haydel said the county has not and is not ''trying to turn any landowner into a bad guy.''

"We recognize that people always have private property rights," she said. "We recognize any property owner runs a great risk to open property to the public."

Williamson said

he has tried

Williamson said there were plenty of opportunities for the county to respond and work out an agreement. He said he waited about 11 months to send the letter canceling the lease.

"They dropped the ball this time and are trying to make us feel like we were the people who did not want to work with them or would not work with them," he said.

And Williamson said he has tried to work with the county.

Two of Williamson's requests to the county were for a new access route to the boat landing and for more litter pickup and prevention efforts by county employees.

The county said these issues would have been easy to accommodate but Williamson's other requests were not, namely to compensate him for financial loss and to increase law enforcement patrols.

The county rejected both requests, noting that accounting rules would not allow the county to purchase an unlimited amount of insurance and that it could not allocate law enforcement resources for special needs.

Orangeburg County Deputy Administrator Community Development Division Harold Young denied the county has not done all it could to come to terms with Williamson.

"The county has put amenable solutions in front of him," Young said.

Williamson said he finds it interesting that the county would not help cover for liability with him as owner but is ready to assume the property and the liability that will come with it in any case.

"They will force it open, they will not patrol it and they will take the liability. But they will leave it like it is," he said. "That is not good, is it?"

Haydel said legally the county cannot assume an unlimited liability cap for an individual property owner. It is only by owning the property that the county would be able to handle the liability.

With regards to the allegation of the county ''dropping the ball,'' Haydel apologized to Williamson if he sees the county at fault for not initially following through.

"We are not trying to irritate him or to turn the community against him," Haydel said.

Williamson expressed his frustration that the county would decide to use eminent domain.

He said it will just drag out the issue and result in a lot of taxpayer dollars being spent.

"What it will do on top of that if my attorney is successful, guess who pays all the legal fees on both sides: the county," he said.

Williamson questions

landing study

The decision on the part of the county to further pursue condemnation of the landing was made after a study commissioned by County Council about the need and access of a public boat landing on the South Fork of the Edisto River also revealed the Ness Boat Landing as the best site for a landing.

The study was done by Lexington-based RPM Engineers.

The study revealed what many river and fishing enthusiasts considered the obvious: The Ness Landing received the highest score for the preferred location.

Such factors as schedule, functionality, cost, environmental impact, safety, esthetics and long-range planning went into the study.

County officials plan to use the study in legal proceedings.

But Williamson, after glancing at the study, disputed the findings, noting that a study can be ''manufactured'' to get desired results.

A case in point, Williamson said, is access to the South Fork of the Edisto is not the issue.

To prove his point, Williamson took this reporter to the Claude Boat Landing just over the Bamberg County line. The landing is at the end of Road 365 off of Road 49 near Sweden.

He noted that Claude Landing is state-maintained, has a paved drive, has two boat ramps, paved parking and open space providing good visibility. The study, which was limited to Orangeburg County, did not take the Claude Landing into consideration.

Williamson said the odometer reading in his vehicle notes the landing is about 2.7 miles or a three-minute drive with the speed limit from the Ness Landing. Williamson said a boat drive is about 7 minutes.

And that is what really makes Williamson scratch his head.

"What this is about is a small number of people raising cane when three minutes away they got plenty of access," he said. "If it was not open to all citizens, that would be different. They (county officials) don't want to talk about that."

Young said driving distance is not the same as boating distance.

He explained that fishermen have said navigation on the river from the Ness Landing is safer and is filled with less debris than the Claude Landing.

"The study was done with rational thinking behind it," Young said.

Williamson said he would consider keeping the Ness Landing open but with the problems he has had at the landing and with South Fork access in proximity, it is a no-brainer on what to do.

"Anybody who puts in there can go anywhere they can from the other (Ness Landing)," he said.

But in addition to the Claude Landing, Williamson said there is Bobcat Landing on U.S. 301 and another on Cannon Bridge Road.

The issue of private property/public use received some publicity last year when state voters, by a large margin, voted to approve a state constitutional amendment prohibiting the state and local governments from condemning or taking private property for any purpose other than to put it to public use or to eliminate blight or a danger to community safety and health.

"The offer to purchase has been on the table from day one," county administrator Bill Clark said, explaining that the county has had a number of conversations with Williamson in the past without an agreement.

"If Mr. Williamson is interested in having public access of that landing maintained, we are happy to discuss it with him as we have on a number of occasions prior," Clark said.

In the interim, as part of the condemnation process the county sent a letter March 16 to Williamson asking permission for an appraiser with expertise in eminent domain to visit the property.

As part of the eminent domain process, the appraiser will determine the fair market value of the property and prepare an appraisal.

The appraisal will consist of documentation and justification of what is determined to be "just compensation" to the property owner.

Williamson will be notified of the appraisal and will have 30 days to file a legal action challenging it which he plans to do.

The challenge could examine whether the county has the power to condemn, if the property is subject to condemnation and whether the proper site selection was conducted.

T&D Staff Writer Gene Zaleski can be reached by e-mail at gzaleski@timesanddemocrat.com or by phone at 803-533-5551. Discuss this and other stories at TheTandD.com.

You must be logged in to comment.