Residents urge housing-court pilot, community engagement on amphitheatre and investigation of buried tanks
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Three public commenters asked council to (1) pilot a housing court to curb high eviction rates, (2) ensure community input on decisions around the Bon Secours Amphitheatre, and (3) investigate alleged buried chemical tanks at the former Union Bleachery site potentially affecting groundwater.
Three residents addressed Greenville County Council during public comment on Feb. 3, raising housing, community-engagement and environmental concerns.
Bob Carson, a Greenville homeowner and member of Gold Justice, urged the council to establish a pilot housing court to address what he described as an alarming eviction rate in the county. "Greenville County has had the highest rate of residential tenant evictions in South Carolina affecting about 1 in 5 tenants," Carson said, and he pointed to pilot housing courts in Charleston (2019) and Columbia (2023) as models that reportedly reduced evictions and increased opportunities for representation and pretrial mediation. Carson said the county had received HUD grant monies that could fund a pilot and asked the council to take action to lower the eviction rate.
Jamila Emiliann Onwaza, a Greenville resident, testified in opposition to current proposals related to the Bon Secours Amphitheatre and urged the council to "take the time to engage the community and allow the majority voice to guide the outcome," asking for transparent, meaningful community involvement before final decisions.
Scott Smith raised an environmental and public-health concern involving the former Union Bleachery on Old Buncombe Road. Smith alleged there are nine buried tanks that contain chromium, that vegetation will not grow on the site and that the contamination has reached groundwater that flows into the Reedy River. He said attempts to secure agency responses were unsuccessful and asked the council for guidance on next steps and for proof that the tanks were emptied. A councilor offered to speak with Smith after the meeting to provide follow-up information and contacts.
Council acknowledged the comments. No formal county action on the housing-court proposal or the contamination allegation was taken during the meeting; the housing-court idea was discussed later in the meeting as part of broader land-use and legal-process discussion when a councilor introduced a concurrency study resolution.