A $26.6 Million Bailout For Bull Street

STATE TAXPAYERS COULD SOON BE ON THE HOOK FOR BOONDOGGLE Last September this website weighed in against the proposed Bull Street redevelopment in downtown Columbia, S.C. – a project which was pushed through city government by “Mayorhood” Steve Benjamin (against the advice of Columbia, S.C. attorneys). We have no problem…


Last September this website weighed in against the proposed Bull Street redevelopment in downtown Columbia, S.C. – a project which was pushed through city government by “Mayorhood” Steve Benjamin (against the advice of Columbia, S.C. attorneys).

We have no problem with the project, we just don’t think taxpayers should ever be on the hook for private development deals – especially not to the tune of $71 million. And especially not when the city’s own attorneys concluded the deal exposed the city “to significant legal and financial risks.”

More recently, we objected to the costly inclusion of a baseball stadium into the development plan – arguing it placed further unnecessary strain on the city’s debt burden.

The latest bombshell in this rapidly expanding boondoggle? A $26.6 million bailout from state government – which was approved this week by the S.C. House Ways and Means committee and which is expected to receive a vote in the House later this month.

The “Bull Street bailout” would come via the expansion of an existing tax credit for the restoration of abandoned buildings, but all you need to know as a taxpayer is it will “reduce (state) revenue by an estimated $13,300,000 in FY2014-15 and by an estimated $13,300,000 in FY2015-16.”

In fact here’s a recent memo obtained from city government detailing the scam.

Bottom line? This bill would give the Bull Street developer $26.6 million in tax breaks over the next two years … money you better believe state government will be taking out of your back pocket.

Picking winners and losers, in other words … and unless you’re the developer, you’re one of the losers.

We categorically reject this boondoggle and call on members of the S.C. House of Representatives to do the same.

South Carolina taxpayers should not be forced to invest in local developments like this under any circumstances … but particularly not in this economy. And particularly not in light of the legitimate concerns associated with this deal.

Related posts


Hampton County Financial Mismanagement Prompts Investigations, Allegations

Callie Lyons

South Carolina Beach Water Monitoring Set To Begin …


Former TV Anchor, ‘Friends Of The Hunley’ Leader Popped For DUI

Will Folks


Bill May 21, 2014 at 10:55 am

“We We have no problem with the project, we just don’t think taxpayers should ever be on the hook for private development deals. . .The “Bull Street bailout” would come via the expansion of an existing tax credit for the restoration of abandoned buildings, but all you need to know as a taxpayer is it will “reduce (state) revenue by an estimated $13,300,000 in FY2014-15 and by an estimated $13,300,000 in FY2015-16.”

Why is it you understand this when it comes to this project, but not when it comes to private school tax credits/vouchers? its the same issue. Either way the taxpayer is paying for a private development deal, They are either paying for a private stadium or a private school (most likely with a stadium). The only difference is private school credit/voucher is a hell of a lot bigger boondoggle. This is a drop in the bucket compared to what that program would cost taxpayers.

Smirks May 21, 2014 at 11:03 am

Political ideology is like religion, very few truly believe in the strict dogma, most just pick and choose what they like and ignore the rest.

Bible Thumper May 21, 2014 at 11:36 am

There is ideological consistency. In each case the government’s role is reduced. Not funding private development. Move from government school to private school and parent making the decision.

Bill May 21, 2014 at 11:59 am

This argument is nonsense. The only way the argument would be consistent is if you were arguing to shut down all public schools and let everyone do they best they can to get a private education. If that is the argument you want to make, make it. I welcome that debate. But don’t pretend forcing everyone to pay for the private education of a few people reduces government.

AnCap May 21, 2014 at 12:20 pm

When you allow anyone to have a tax credit (some of their stolen money back) to attend a private school, it adds competition to the mostly monopolistic state of primary education in the US.

EJB May 21, 2014 at 1:26 pm

Unfortunately it would not. Two businesses duke it out and
work to find a way to get one up on the other. The public schools being government run would never have the incentive to change that businesses would, in fact, as things got worse for the public schools the result would be politicians passing more and more laws “regulating” private schools until they screw private schools as much as the screw public schools. There is a book, put out by the federal government which lists the laws, state by state, that regulate private schools, there is only a couple of pages under the heading “South Carolina”. Meanwhile the public schools have numerous regulations that force them to do things that private schools don’t. Public schools would just ask for more money, and get it. Vouchers/credits won’t/can’t work because they have no impact on the root problem.

Bible Thumper May 21, 2014 at 12:21 pm

Ideologically consistent: Reduced government role not nonexistent role.

Everyone is forced to pay for public school system even those who choose private schools for their children. Even worse the poor and lower middle class are forced to use public schools and can not even choose which public school in most cases unless they can afford to move. Could the government role possibly be any bigger? Maybe if they were required to get permission to move.

nitrat May 21, 2014 at 1:10 pm – Thomas Jefferson:
1786 August 13. (to George Wythe) “I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness…Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.] and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”[2]

Obama's half white May 22, 2014 at 12:30 am

I love the fact that Jefferson humped his slaves. He was a truly a progressive in every sense of the word.

Bill May 21, 2014 at 1:11 pm

Please stop this silly argument that Voucher supporters care about kids in public school. They do not. They propose to take money from the public system and give it to the parents of kid in the private school system. This will hurt not help children who must rely on public education. This is not about helping kids in public schools and you know it. The vouchers and credits you want exceed the amount you pay into public education. The average citizen in SC pays less than $1800 a year into the public education system.

Following you argument to its logical conclusion. If I choose to go a longer route to work to avoid a new bridge I should get a tax credit, If I choose to drive instead of public transportation, I should get a tax credit; If I would rather hire a private security guard as opposed to relying on the police force, I should get a tax credit; If I want to hire a private fire service instead of relying on the fire department, I should get a tax credit; if I choose not to fly, and thus have no need for airports, I should get a tax credit to subsidize my travel; If I do not want the military to defend me when the Russians invade, i should get a tax credit.

Once again, if you are arguing for the elimination of public education I welcome the debate. But there is no consistent halfway argument that gets the school voucher folks what they want. Which is public funding of private schools.

Bible Thumper May 21, 2014 at 12:36 pm

You may disagree, but my argument is not nonsense. You don’t want to pay for private schools but you want me to pay for public schools. Where vouchers are available, both systems, public and private, improve. Competitions invisible finger.

Bill May 21, 2014 at 12:55 pm

The argument is nonsense, unless you think the government has no obligation to provide public education. Public education is exactly that. Public. Every taxpayer has the same access to the system and input into its operation.

There is absolutely zero evidence the false competition you allege impacts the quality of public education. The money will go to people who are not currently using public education. No state provides enough money to move enough kids from public education to private education to make a difference; and even if they did they still could not get into the quality private schools. The money is going to the parents of kids who are already in private school.

Wisconsin started a voucher program and tried to measure its success. They were requiring private school students to take tests. When the tests showed private school students were doing no better than similarly situation public school students, they shut down the testing.

The competition argument is simply bogus.

GrandTango May 21, 2014 at 1:52 pm

Liberalism is a religion. Conservatives are based in God first. Then our decisions flow from our Christian beliefs, and a history that has lead to unimaginable growth and success, in helping the poor and dis-spirited…

Liberals are EXTREMELY jealous of Christianity…you want the loyalty to your tenets, but you have only failure, spiritual poverty and lies to combat the Christians light, truth and prosperity.

truthmonger May 21, 2014 at 2:06 pm

Which God? The pew-jumping Protestants? The Hindus? The Satanists? The Muslims?

Jan May 21, 2014 at 2:58 pm

You are certainly no Christian, Christ would recognize.

GrandTango May 21, 2014 at 3:15 pm

So you are taking it upon yourself to Damn me to Hell?

Smirks May 21, 2014 at 3:21 pm

Believe it or not, most people aren’t as hateful as you.

GrandTango May 21, 2014 at 4:57 pm

Don’t confuse anger over injustice w/ hate.

I hate NO ONE. And will pray for anyone. Even those who attempt to pervert the Word to control those they hate.

Jan May 21, 2014 at 3:34 pm

Judge not lest you be judged.

GrandTango May 21, 2014 at 4:42 pm

So if I offer critical analysis of your political ideology, you have the right to Judge me to Hell???…

That’s how you interpret the Bible?

Deo Vindice SC May 21, 2014 at 6:12 pm

Conservatives only exist to blow little boys pee pees, pervert.

Native Ink May 22, 2014 at 8:27 am

LOL. The Age of Enlightenment led to modern democracy, human rights, and the scientific method. Enlightenment thinkers deliberately turned their backs on church doctrine and superstition, thus bringing Europe out of the Dark Ages of religious tyranny.

GrandTango May 22, 2014 at 8:42 am

You just moved to the front of the pack of the MOST-IGNORNT list…You need to take a History class.

Christian nations have always overcome Tremendous odds, to defeat pagans, heathens, false religions and God-less barbarians. Even in the Dark Ages.

And those Romans, who slaughtered Christians for sport sure were enlightened…right??…And who defeated the Powerful and expert armies of the Islamic Empire, despite overwhelming deficiencies?

This nation was founded and built BY CHRISTAINS, and it’s the most successful in the history of the World. We abolished slavery and Nazis, based on our faith in Christ…

You’d be jailed and tortured, if we were not so kind and open to allowing idiots and fools to attack us w/ your failed theologies…You are very naïve and condemned to repeat the same mistakes that brought ruin to your evil, deceitful and Christian-hating predecessors…

truthmonger May 22, 2014 at 4:37 pm

Ummm…. actually, the Catholic Church was what enabled the Renaissance, and protected the works of greats like Aristotle while the secular world fell apart (Dark Ages). In fact, orders such as the Jesuits are responsible for the development and expansion of what became the concept of public education.
Please do NOT group me in with Grand Tango simply because I hold to a faith. Quite a few of us are rational, intelligent, and educated…. and can see that there is NO CONFLICT between believing in God and using the scientific method to increase our understanding of him. Science is the art of God.

Bible Thumper May 21, 2014 at 11:23 am

Bill, by your logic the state should take over and run developments in the same way they run the public schools. No more private development deals but a lot of public development.

Bill May 21, 2014 at 11:58 am

Wrong. The government has a obligation to provide citizens with a quality public education. Just like roads, bridges, fire departments, police departments, etc. Those schools should be open to all who need an education and not subject to the rule of who can pay the most money, gets the best education.

The government has no obligation to, and should not, pay money to a private business to provide private services to a select group of citizens at the expense of everyone else, including those who cannot benefit from the service.

Bible Thumper May 21, 2014 at 12:11 pm

“services to a select group”? Then offer it to all students.

The government gives grants and loans to college students and they can choose among schools that will accept them public or private. We have the best university system in the world. Not the best public school system.

Bill May 21, 2014 at 12:41 pm

Offer what to all students?? If you are suggesting private schools would be required to take all who apply I am willing to listen. Otherwise you are simply ignoring the fact that a private business is choosing to provide private services to a select group of people at the expense of everyone else.

The University analogy is flawed. First of all a loan is a loan. it gets paid back, so I do not think that is relevant. Second, you assume I agree with the way we fund higher education. Third, at least grants are based on financial need and only available to low income citizens.

And besides your buddy Will, thinks all colleges and universities should be private and in states that don’t really support quality public education, like SC, they almost are.

Bible Thumper May 21, 2014 at 1:17 pm

Most private schools do take all that apply up to there capacity.
It must be designed so that the poor, disabled, and lower performing students have real choices and schools have incentives to perform well. It can’t become a subsidy for the rich only.

Jan May 21, 2014 at 5:15 pm

You and I both know that this is not true. This tax credit/voucher programs are only designed benefit those who are middle income and up. You and I also both know that the expensive private schools will prefer the children of the rich over the children of the poor or even middle income citizens. Yet those they would not take are required to pay for those they would take. There are no proposals designed to benefit poor, disable or lower performing students.

Bible Thumper May 21, 2014 at 6:24 pm

“You and I both know that this is not true.” This is not theory. There are several voucher programs already in place. The fears of opponents of harm to public schools, segregation by race or income has not occurred.

Jan May 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm

What are you talking about? Private schools in South Carolina are 85+% white, and if you pull the religious schools out of the mix that probably jumps to 95% white. These are the people who would get the money. They are already segregated, and now they want the state to pay to keep them that way.

What you are saying is that not enough people currently in public school will move to private school to increase segregation from its current level. Well that may be true, but that is because vouchers have nothing to do with moving kids from public school to private school. It is all about giving taxpayer money to parents with kids already in private school.

You are not making an argument for private school vouchers. There is no logical argument except people with kids in private schools want the state to pay for their private schools, so they can spend their money on other things. Under some weird logic they think this request is justified by the fact the state provides a public school system.

truthmonger May 22, 2014 at 4:41 pm

Having attended one of the private schools SIC loves to crow about, I can ASSURE you that they do NOT, in fact, take anyone. Oh, and Cardinal Newman is also partially supported by the Diocese. Similar in concept to being supported by tax dollars.

Bible Thumper May 22, 2014 at 4:56 pm

I have to. Baptist affiliated school. There weren’t any entrance standards. There were Jewish, Catholic, India and Hispanic students.

Jan May 23, 2014 at 6:21 pm

While you guys may have attended private schools, I have attended and paid for private school. An expensive one. Many certainly do discriminate as to the type of people they will accept. Most of the time it has nothing to do with religion. It is related to money and connections.

By the way, I notice you left poor black kids off of your list of students. at your Baptist affiliated school. For that matter how many Jewish, Indian, and Hispanic kids did your school have? Would it require more than two hands to count.

Bible Thumper May 23, 2014 at 7:32 pm

Racism takes many forms. Sometimes it is hate, but mostly it is fear. The public school in my home town only had one white student and he died in what was believed to be gang violence. That does not mean the public school was racist.

The effect of school choice on segregation depends on its design. It can reduce it. Segregation should be a concern whether it is in public or private schools. This study found no effect but results varied and some had reduced segregation.

Jan May 27, 2014 at 4:39 pm

Vouchers are a total rip off for the taxpayer. It does not stir the pot. The reason no black students applied to your school is they knew they were not welcome. You attended a typical southern “white flight” academy.

To even bring up the possibility the public school was racist because it had no whites is disingenuous. Of course it had nothing to do with racism by the public school or those attending it. White parents removed their children from the public school because they did not want their children going to school with black kids.

Vouchers are for the benefit of those currently in private school. If you want to stir the pot, propose vouchers that are only available to low income families whose children are attending failing public schools. No vouchers for people who can afford private school or who are already attending private school.

But that is not what voucher proponents want. They want me to help them pay for their children to go to private school, so they can spend their money on other things.

Bible Thumper May 27, 2014 at 8:35 pm

Usually private schools cost about half the price of public schools per student. Students moving from public to private schools would over time save money. Of course current private school students receiving vouchers would cost tax payers more.
“Briggs vs. Elliott” better known as “Brown vs. Topeka” has not integrated many schools in the “corridor of shame” but a properly designed vochers plan might.
I would like vochers available to the middle class also as a way to incourage industry to locate in some of our poorest areas. Industry won’t locate there if there are not quality affordable schools for both local and relocating employees and management.
I know the ideal situation would be that all schools were high quality, but after waiting 45 years we need to try something new.
White flight was first from the schools and then from the communities. Blacks are fleeing also.

truthmonger May 21, 2014 at 2:09 pm

Private school vouchers are the Obamacare of education.

Will Folks aka Sic May 21, 2014 at 2:04 pm

Are you really comparing tax credits universally available to all parents (i.e. “Universal Parental Choice”) with a government handout for a baseball stadium?

Smirks May 21, 2014 at 3:04 pm

“We should give tax credits to people who choose to pay for private education, but should tell people who choose not to have kids in the first place to go fuck themselves.”

It’s essentially the same thing, even if you think it goes to a nobler cause. From the hands of many into the hands of a few.

Bill May 21, 2014 at 3:31 pm

Indeed I am, because they are the exact same thing; a government handout to a select group of private citizens; and the wealthier you are the larger the hand out.

In both instances taxpayer dollars are going to private business to subsidize private services, being sold to a group of people selected by those businesses.

In both instances the people actually paying for the services have no input into the services provided, there is no accountability to the people paying for the services, and no guarantee the people paying for the services will be allowed to access the services.

Second, tax credits are not “universally” available to all parents. They are only available to the extent you pay taxes, to the extent the credit is sufficient to allow you to move your child to private school, and to the extent a private school is available that will take your child. In other words, the richer you are the higher the benefit and and the more likely you are to receive the benefit..

This is in fact the most egregious form of government intervention in the private market. I.E. subsidizing the cost of private services for those who can already afford the service at the expense of those who cannot afford the service, cannot benefit from the services, or cannot access the services. This is compounded by the fact the voucher folks want the government to give them more money than they are currently paying for public education.

Oh, and for those who say the taxpayers are not paying for private school, all you need to know as a taxpayer is the tax credits will “reduce (state) revenue by hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Way more than the cost of a baseball stadium, and the vast majority of you will receive nothing for your money.

scotty May 21, 2014 at 11:10 am

I still can not understand the City Counsel buying in to this POS land hustle. They are looking at millions in the sewer problems and water leaks and have no way of even starting to pay for it. The tax payers will never pay off this POS bad deal and the sewers will still be flowing on to the streets and in the water ways. Ever wonder why so called developers become millionaires it isn’t the deals it is the dumb ass voters/ tax payers.

EJB May 21, 2014 at 1:08 pm

none of the rate increases (that I know of) for sewer and water have gone to sewer and water projects. They have been using that money for everything but….

Jay Ellington May 21, 2014 at 1:24 pm

The misappropriation of taxpayer funds meant for the failing water system is well documented. From 1999 to 2010, Columbia officials diverted some $79 million away from the utility fund.

truthmonger May 21, 2014 at 2:12 pm

That’s what happens when USC buys up so much of the valuable tax base in the city…. no tax money to pay for basic services.

Scooter May 21, 2014 at 9:05 pm

Spartanburg found out the hard way. They let Wofford, Converse, First Baptish & First Presbyterian buy everything.

BrigidBernadette May 22, 2014 at 9:30 am

Can’t we sue them for doing that?

Scooter May 21, 2014 at 9:03 pm

Because they are ignorant and gullible.

Scooter May 21, 2014 at 9:10 pm

And crooked.

Jay Ellington May 21, 2014 at 11:28 am

I really hope this development is a success, but my optimism is tainted by the fact that Steve Benjamin is involved.

Beavis May 22, 2014 at 12:27 am

You said “taint” in the same sentence with Steve Benjamin’s name.


CorruptionInColumbia May 21, 2014 at 11:34 am

Benjamin must be taking “lying lessons” from Bob Coble. Columbia has been trying to figure out how they can fuck their current and future retirees and current employees even more, by taking away health care benefits promised to those people when they went to work there.

I read an article yesterday, where Benjamin said that this had absolutely nothing to do with the proposed boondoggle ball park. Oh yeah, supposedly when that worthless old warehouse is sold or whatever is done with it, they will put the money into the account for employee and retiree health insurance. Yeah right, motherfucker!

EJB May 21, 2014 at 12:42 pm

He took the money out of that account to pay for the dilapidated warehouse why wouldn’t he put it back when they sell it? They will sell it, after they get the extraordinary price to renovate it. “It costs too much” they’ll say, sell it for half what they paid and put that pittance back in the employees account. Mr. Benjamin and company already got their money when they inked the contract. That thing will rot some more, not producing any tax revenue, until they sell.

idcydm May 21, 2014 at 11:39 am

If someone wants to buy a baseball team they should be required to buy a baseball field also.

Tank May 21, 2014 at 11:45 am

No. There are other winners: Mayor Benjamin and those in lock-step with him.

southmauldin May 21, 2014 at 11:58 am

Here in Greenville, you can build a baseball stadium in the crappy part of town and it will work. There are condos, restaurants, office space and the Swamp Rabbit Trail all close by. Who in the hell would want to go to a baseball game, much less live or work, on or around Bull Street.
As usual, the taxpayers are getting cornholed yet again over Steve Benjamin’s pet project. As if we didn’t see the writing on the wall with his Riverside or whatever the hell the name of that development was that was so wildly successful.

Jay Ellington May 21, 2014 at 12:13 pm

We are talking about the same moron that wanted to build a “city within a city” out in BFE on a floodplain (Green Diamond). He doesn’t know what to do with the city he’s been “elected” to oversee, so why in the hell would this “city within a city” be any different. If he thinks he’s some sort of visionary, he really needs to take off the beer goggles.

Jay Ellington May 21, 2014 at 12:17 pm

Greenville was also already an urban hub 7 days a week before Flour Field went in. Downtown Columbia pretty much shuts down at 5pm Monday through Friday and there’s virtually no reason to go to Main Street on the weekend.

Smirks May 21, 2014 at 3:29 pm

I’ve been to a Charleston Riverdogs game, decent crowds. I remember going to a Greenville Braves game a long time ago, again, decent crowds.

I remember going to a Capital City Bombers game. Dead crowd. Hardly anyone there. Same for the Blowfish.

Gamecock baseball drew big crowds after they won some championships, but are starting to peter out a bit. Even so, decent crowds, but there isn’t a huge amount of seating.

Whoever thinks building a baseball stadium on Bull Street would be a good idea needs to get professional help.

Jay Ellington May 21, 2014 at 4:43 pm

In 1999, A year after I moved to Columbia the rock band Smashing Pumpkins played a show at the Township Auditorium, they were still a very popular act and the show was waaaaay undersold. I knew something wasn’t quite right about this place when a huge band like that failed to sell out a 3000 seat theater. There is very little support for arts and entertainment in Columbia. This new stadium will attract some decent numbers in the first year or so, then I predict attendance will sharply decline. If it’s not Gamecock football or $2 well drinks and ear bleeding hip hop, it doesn’t do well here.

Scooter May 21, 2014 at 9:12 pm

I attended a few shows at the Koger Center. I heard an ovation. When I looked around it several people with Cocks caps on yelling.

RICO ACT May 21, 2014 at 12:23 pm

This is how organized crime operates. Think about it.

Jay Ellington May 21, 2014 at 12:40 pm

Same reason Benjamin isn’t on trial right now.

Philip Branton May 21, 2014 at 12:47 pm

LOL…..” This bill would give the Bull Street developer $26.6 million in tax breaks over the next two years … ”

Yep……and we wonder what cover Bobby Harrell and Mayor “Summey” get in return…?

Wonder if there will be a “TOAL” tax on the box seats…..?

Philip Branton May 21, 2014 at 1:01 pm

We wonder just how much loot this developer has funneled to Graham or Scott or CLYBURN….??

The I-95 and I-26 crossroads need some “tenants”…!!

Bible Thumper May 21, 2014 at 1:32 pm

Supposed to have been an inland port on former SuperSod land financed by Dubai at I-95, I-26 intersection. Abu Dhabi had to bailout Dubai after the financial crisis. I believe project has been abandoned. Shopping center has suffered for years.

Philip Branton May 21, 2014 at 2:47 pm

I believe the funds were used instead to build up the port of DJIBOUTI via the Dubai Ports shell move.

…or maybe some BMW and Greer folks got the funds for their BMW inland port….

jimlewisowb May 21, 2014 at 1:22 pm

Awhile back I was offering up some opinions on Cockroach T-Bone and his ballpark

A friend took exception in that since I was not a taxpayer in the City of Columbia I needed to shut the fuck up – none of my business

No harm no foul, I deferred and moved on

Well I will say now what I had planned to say then – Cockroach T-Bone and the rest of the sons of bitches in Columbia will find some way to stick the $26,000,000 bill for the ballpark up my ass and the ass of every man, woman, child, dog, cat and parakeet in the State of South Carolina – betcha a pitcher of ying line, order of wings and fries at BOB’s

Maybe I missed it but what about the teams in Charleston, Myrtle Beach and Greenville

Are statewide taxpayer’s paying for their facilities/costs as well

Anal Penetration May 22, 2014 at 12:33 am

Everyone likes hotdogs at ballgames Jim, it’s just in this case isn’t going to be shoved up your ass instead of you shoving it down your throat.

As GrandTango likes to say, “sit back and enjoy it”.

Anal Penetration May 22, 2014 at 12:34 am

* “it’s going to be shoved”

Squishy123 May 21, 2014 at 6:08 pm

As a former Columbia resident, I hope the city builds a $260 million dollar taxpayer funded stadium… suck it Columbia. The fucking idiots who live there and vote for the people making these decisions deserve what they get.

Deo Vindice SC May 21, 2014 at 6:10 pm

123, right on, .5 bill, why not ?

Scooter May 21, 2014 at 9:07 pm

What Columbia needs is another subsidized airline. Call it Air Columbia. These people never learn.

Deo Vindice SC May 21, 2014 at 6:08 pm

AND, The Big Winner is, hint; not the people of Columbia, or SC.

CorruptionInColumbia May 22, 2014 at 6:55 am

What, you mean T-Bone isn’t a people of Columbia?


Shitfore Brains May 21, 2014 at 9:19 pm


swampland May 22, 2014 at 9:44 pm

Subsidizing the ball park will do nothing for the economic health of the City of Columbia. Currently, most folks spend a certain amount each month on entertainment and dining out. It is unlikely that per person expenditures on these activities will change with the coming of the ball park. Therefore, every dollar spent at the ball park is a dollar not spent with other businesses in the community.


Leave a Comment