Development interests have made at least $77,000 in campaign contributions to the 12 members of the Greenville County Council since 2017, according to analysis of state records by The Greenville News.
As council members prepare for a final vote on a key land-development measure, The News analyzed how much these officials have reported receiving in campaign cash during the past two elections cycles from architects, builders, civil engineers, contractors, developers, home-security and landscaping businesses, land-holding companies, mortgage lenders, real estate agents and road-paving firms.
The review of campaign-finance reports submitted to the state Ethics Commission found:
► Development interests were the biggest source of campaign money for County Council members, accounting for nearly 35% of their overall contributions since 2017. The News was able to track the contributions based on the occupations of donors listed on reports filed with the Ethics Commission.
► County Council campaign fundraising soared during last year's election compared to 2018.
The four incumbents and three newcomers who won their races in 2020 raised a combined $199,562, with $72,510 coming from development interests. In contrast, the five winning council candidates in 2018 raised only a combined $24,350, with $5,300 coming from development interests.
Only one of the seven council members elected last year, Mike Barnes, faced no opposition. Three of the five candidates who won in 2018 — Lynn Ballard, Joe Dill and Xanthene Norris — were unopposed.
► Councilman Steve Shaw, an attorney from Travelers Rest, spent the most to get elected last year. He invested $73,850 of his own money in his campaign. He also collected nearly $12,000 in campaign contributions, including $3,260 from development interests.
Shaw could not be reached by phone Monday, and he did not respond to a text message seeking comment.
Harrison and Tzouvelekas each said Monday that the campaign cash that they received from development interests plays no role in their consideration of revisions to the land-development rule known as Article 3.1.
The rule, which was approved in March 2018, was intended to slow urban sprawl but has instead led to costly court battles.
“That thought doesn’t even cross my mind," said Harrison, a former county planner who currently works as a real estate broker for NAI Earle Furman.
Tzouvelekas, who handles land acquisitions and sales at RealtyLink in Greenville, said the financial support that he received from development interests is no secret, and he said campaign contributions are not a factor in his approach to addressing the county's controversial Article 3.1 rule — "absolutely none."
"I am trying to figure out a balance between growing as much as we're growing and trying not to put a stop to it," Tzouvelekas said.
Ballard and Norris are the only council members who received no campaign contributions from development interests since 2017.
Reactions vary to campaign donations from development interests
The results of The News' analysis detailing the extent of campaign contributions to County Council members from development interests led to varying reactions.
"It looks bad," County Council Chairman Willis Meadows said Monday.
Meadows raised $4,000 for his successful reelection campaign in 2018, with $1,400 of that amount coming from development interests.
"I think councilmen spend too much money trying to get elected," Meadows said.
But Meadows said he doesn't believe campaign contributions influence the County Council's decisions.
"If you're an honorable person, it shouldn't make any difference," he said.
Two environmental critics of the land-use rule amendment on Tuesday's council agenda offered a different perspective.
The News' analysis represents "critical information for the public to know about what is influencing council members when they're taking votes that may affect their key donors," said Michael Martinez, an attorney with the South Carolina Environmental Law Project.
In a statement issued Monday, Upstate Forever executive director Andrea Cooper said residents who are concerned about over-development in Greenville County's rural areas "feel like they are being ignored."
Cooper urged council members to approve the staff's recommended changes to Article 3.1, which would require at least 30% percent of the property in rural subdivisions to be set aside as open space.
Developers' share of costs for road improvements at issue
The amendment sponsored by Harrison, Tzouvelekas and five other council members would cap the open space requirement at 25% for subdivisions featuring 1/2-acre lots.
Michael Dey, vice president of governmental affairs for the Homebuilders Association of Greenville, said it makes sense that developers and homebuilders have made ample campaign contributions to County Council members. He said the council oversees land-development regulations in the county as well as tax rates.
The council "has an outsized influence on their industry," Dey said.
Dey said he helped draft portions of the amendment to the land-development rule. He said the staff's recommendations requiring developers to widen roads near new housing communities could add up to $380,000 to the cost of a subdivision.
"If you call that the cure, it's worse than the disease," Dey said.
County Councilman Butch Kirven, who received $6,000 in contributions from development interests, said the proposed amendment to the land-development rule would increase the financial burden on taxpayers, "and in the meantime, they are going to be stuck with traffic and wrecks." Kirven said he's concerned the amendment would allow developers to duck the cost of necessary road improvements near new subdivisions.
"I've never seen in my almost 17 years on County Council where the private sector is actually writing the laws and giving it certain members of County Council and saying, 'Here, get this done,'" Kirven said.
