Author Topic: Liberty's out-of-state lawyers need to read South Carolina law.  (Read 608 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tom Rubillo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
Liberty's out-of-state lawyers need to read South Carolina law.
« on: February 23, 2022, 05:08:10 PM »
There is a very big difference between public employment and holding a public office.  People who work for the government can work two jobs at the same time, even two public jobs.  That is not prohibited.  What is prohibited is for one individual to hold to public offices "of honor"-- elected or high appointed offices -- at the same time.  Some who, for example, holds a "public office" can,, at the same time, work as a public employee, provided only that that job is not with the same agency, department or political subdivision where he or she holds a public office.  Jack Scoville, for example, held the judicial office of Master in Equity while, at the same time serving as the county attorney for Georgetown County.  That was not deemed to be dual office holding. 

The city's former planning director is now the city administrator of another South Carolina subdivision.  While making the transition from one job to the other, he did some final work for the city.  Neither position, old or new, is a "public office."  Both involve public employment.  If news accounts are accurate.; Liberty's, when appealing the city's zoning decision, has attacked this gentleman on ethical grounds by asserting that he is guilty of "dual office holding".   He isn't.  Liberty's out-of-state lawyers need to read South Carolina law before they attack the messenger because they don't like the message.  Once they've done that basic research they should withdraw that part of their appeal and apologize.

The city's position is not a "farce" as alleged by Liberty.  It is a serious, well-researched position.  I believe it is correct, both as a matter of fact and a matter of law.  To the contrary, Liberty's "kill the messenger" response is "frivolous" both as a matter of fact and a matter of law,  They also need to understand that wearing Gucci shoes and Armani suits, resorting to insulting, frivolous attacks and looking down their noses won't cut it.  Local governments have every right to regulate land use in their communities.  Liberty bought the property it now occupies with clear notice of the limitations on its use set out in the local ordinance.  It has nothing to complain about here.  Instead, it should salvage whatever equipment it can, demolish the buildings and sell off the scrap, clean up its seriously contaminated property  (including the adjoining Sampit River's bed) and put it on the market. 

Liberty gambled.  It lost.  Too bad.  The city needs to stick to its guns and move forward.  That's my two cents worth, for what it's worth.   

PBSIAT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
Re: Liberty's out-of-state lawyers need to read South Carolina law.
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2022, 07:35:09 PM »
Tom you are suggesting something very interesting. Do you know about the AVX history in Horry and Myrtle Beach? They did exactly what you are suggesting a few years ago. They were caught in a big mess with contamination and the city of Myrtle Beach and Horry County got all over them. So AVX tore down their buildings and left. Sounds like Liberty would be wise to do the same?