In my own county in South Carolina, it appears that the money is talking more than principles, morals and an actual representation of the people of the county by the powers that are tolerated, including poisoning children in the area by backing a company handling hazardous chemicals to operate next to a school. The Board of Zoning Appeals has already seen two chemical spills and at least one school closure without stepping in to do what is right.
Dave Emanuel writes at Palmetto State Watch Foundation:
The Silfab story in Fort Mill keeps getting worse. What began as a straightforward zoning violation, one the Board of Zoning Appeals resolved unanimously, has unraveled into a case study in how local government can prioritize economic incentives over the people it is supposed to protect. York County Council approved the incentives and let a facility handling hazardous chemicals operate next to a school. Two chemical spills and one school closure later, we are still digging. Here is what we have found so far.
Our first article about the Silfab debacle in Fort Mill was entitled, “Silfab Fort Mill: Seems the Fix is In”. Although we haven’t found any hard evidence of anyone accepting payments or gifts, it sure seems that something is rotten in Fort Mill. The Fort Mill Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) ruled unanimously that Silfab’s solar manufacturing was not a permitted use in an area zoned “Light Industrial”. In spite of that ruling, numerous members of County Council, and chairwoman Christi Cox in particular, have defended the Council’s decision to allow Silfab to operate. That defense has been mounted with the dedication of a mama bear defending her cubs. (This analogy is not meant to imply that Christi Cox resembles a bear.) Consequently, the company continued operation involving the storage and use of numerous hazardous chemicals. It wasn’t until two chemical leaks, one of which caused the closure of a nearby school, that Silfab was shut down. Not because the county council demanded it, but because the state’s Department of Environmental Services (DES) stepped in.
A lot of the actions taken by the York County Council doesn’t demonstrate that the Council has the best interests of the citizens as its top priority. Allowing permits for Silfab’s facility after the BZA ruling that the use was not allowed under Light Industrial zoning is a case in point.
Approving a FILOT (Fee Instead of Tax) Agreement is another questionable action. It indicates the majority of council members were more interested in money than the safety of its citizens. FILOTs are instrumental in attracting large companies to locate a facility within a particular county. But issuing a FILOT to encourage Silfab to locate its hazardous chemical facility within a stone’s throw of a school and residential area demonstrates a disregard of citizen safety. Silfab’s two chemical spills in March illustrate that safety concerns are very real. Yet prior to Silfab operating in Fort Mill, council member William “Bump” Roddy stated, “Hopefully, DHEC will address any air quality issues, DHEC will address water quality, but don’t expect this board to hold up any fee in lieu based on what DHEC is yet to determine.”
Roddy also spoke extensively about how much he liked the 800 jobs and the tax revenue Silfab would bring to the county, while wishing and hoping (“Hopefully” in his words) DHEC (now DES), would address air and water quality issues. Obviously three other council members agreed with him and voted in favor of the FILOT because it seems to be a consistent theme that in York County, it’s all about the money. Citizen safety? Not so much.
As witnessed by the chemical spills in March, the council definitely should have considered the potential dangers presented by the use and storage of numerous hazardous chemicals. Students at Flint Hill Elementary School missed two days of instruction because the school was closed after Silfab’s leak of hydrofluoric acid. Obviously, the council not only did not consider safety issues because by approving the FILOT they encouraged Silfab to locate close to a school. Will it take a future leak that causes students to be seriously injured or killed, for the Council to care about safety?
Or is their plan to shirk responsibility? On April 2, 2026, County chair Cox responded to Attorney General Alan Wilson’s questions about Silfab. She stated, “Since your letter was addressed to me personally as Council Chair, please be advised that the only action taken by Council related to Silfab was to approve incentives. Other than the FILOT decision made in 2023, Council has taken no other action with respect to Silfab. Council was not involved in and did not make any zoning decisions regarding Silfab and had no role in the issuance of any zoning verification, zoning compliance approval, or applicant-specific permitting. Once questions were raised, per the authority granted to Council under S.C. Code §4-9-850, and as confirmed in your office’s letter dated July 14, 2025, Council directed county management to conduct investigations into the zoning and permitting processes at issue. County management determined that the zoning approvals/permits that county staff issued were in accordance with established processes. Beginning in 2024, numerous lawsuits were filed challenging these various zoning determinations.”
If that isn’t a denial of responsibility, I don’t know what is. According to Cox’s statement, she is denying all responsibility for bringing Silfab to York County other than approving incentives. Did she or any Council member consider the location of the Silfab facility or the fact that numerous hazardous chemicals would be used and stored close to a school and residential areas? Apparently not. She also states that Council had, “no role in the issuance of any zoning verification, zoning compliance approval, or applicant-specific permitting.” Except for York County, it’s almost unheard of for a county council to excuse itself from evaluating zoning applications and the issues surrounding them. And when a county council does exempt itself from a zoning considerations, the responsibility for dealing with them rightfully falls to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Yet the Council has not supported the BZA’s unanimous decision that Silfab’s facility did not meet the requirements to locate within a Light Industrial zone.
It appears that the Council’s motto should be, “show me the money”. Which brings up another issue. According to South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 8, Chapter 13, Section 8-13-1308, (https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/title-8/chapter-13/section-8-13-1308/) (A) Upon the receipt or expenditure of campaign contributions or the making of independent expenditures totaling an accumulated aggregate of five hundred dollars or more, a candidate or committee required to file a statement of organization pursuant to Section 8-13-1304(A) must file an initial certified campaign report within ten days of these initial receipts or expenditures. However, a candidate who does not receive or expend campaign contributions totaling an accumulated aggregate of five hundred dollars or more must file an initial certified campaign report fifteen days before an election.
According to the South Carolina ethics site, Christi Cox contributed $821.51 to her 2024 campaign and spent $821.51 with the South Carolina Republican Party. Those were her only declared contributions and expenses. In 2020, the situation was similar. She contributed $714.51 to her campaign and spent the same amount with the York County Republican Party and stated that expense was for a filing fee.
In 2016 she claimed no contributions and expenditures of $750.00 with Wix for web site fees and $340.44 for stamps. However, nowhere could we find any expense listed for printing whatever she used the stamps to mail. If she printed those pieces herself, she had to buy paper. The $1090 she had already declared, put her over the accumulated $500 aggregate, so all expenses should have been listed on her disclosure.
Admittedly, we could be making invalid assumptions and chasing ghosts, but we have to question a candidate declaring no expenditures and no contributions, other than filing fees, in two successive elections. There’s more and we’re still investigating. Subsequent reports will be published on https://palmettostatewatchfoundation.com
