A CONTROVERSIAL proposal from a group of Savannah’s most powerful elite to build a three-story underground parking garage and huge office campus in a quiet neighborhood next to Forsyth Park has garnered a lot of public pushback, as you might expect.
Of more serious concern are allegations that a number of laws and ordinances were bent, maybe past the breaking point, to push the project through before public opinion against it can gain a foothold. (Above is an artist rendering of the site after it's finished.)
In just the most recent example of many, the home of the historic Black funeral home Campbell and Sons was quickly bulldozed and carted off – apparently despite a clearly stated requirement from the Metropolitan Planning Commission that the historic building would be salvaged as much as possible.
These kinds of controversies have been a hallmark of the project apparently from its inception. We’ll go over these issues step by step here.
First, a quick overview of the project:
Forsyth Commons, LLC, is proposing a 115,000 square-foot office campus and a 412-space public parking garage on land its principal investors own at the corner of Whitaker Street and Park Avenue, just across the street from the Sentient Bean at Forsyth Park’s south end.
The investors are a virtual who’s-who of Savannah's oligarchy: Reed Dulaney (current board member of the Savannah Economic Development Authority), David Paddison (former chair of SEDA), the Hunter Maclean law firm (which is also representing the project legally and which plans to have its offices in the new campus), and Jeff Jepson (whose company Evans General Contractors will also be managing the construction).
But it’s not just a private project of some of Savannah’s most powerful citizens. It is also a public-private partnership, with the full backing of the City of Savannah, whose taxpayers through the Savannah Economic Development Authority (SEDA) will help underwrite the $35 million bond issue to pay for it.
The City and the investors claim the project will be a public benefit due to some spaces in the vast underground garage being available for the public to pay for and use… on evenings and weekends. In an area of town that already has free on-street parking.
Sound like a pretty one-sided deal to you? You wouldn’t be alone.
Blake Gillman is an attorney and a property owner in the immediate neighborhood set to be impacted by the massive project. He is pushing back hard against it.
“This is going to be terrible for the community and for this neighborhood. This is one of the last pockets that hasn’t been overrun and exploited by developers,” Gillman tells The Savannahian.
Here’s a breakdown of possible major issues with this project:
No competitive bidding for project
In the state of Georgia, public/private partnerships such as this one are largely governed by the so-called P3 Act (Public-Private Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2015).
The current contract for Evans General Contractors to build the Forsyth Commons project is what’s called a “sole source construction contract,” in other words only one company will manage and be responsible for it.
The catch is that if a local government receives an unsolicited proposal for a particular project – such as the project by Forsyth Commons – they must by law “seek competing proposals for the qualifying project by issuing a request for proposals for not less than 90 days” and “review all proposals submitted in response to the request for proposals based on the criteria established in the request for proposals.”
Simply put, the P3 Act prohibits a public entity from awarding a contract directly to the original proposer without first undergoing a transparent competitive procurement process.
Such a competitive process did not happen with Forsyth Commons, however.
“This to me is the most serious issue,” Gillman says. “The structure of the sole source contract didn’t put the project out for competitive bidding.”
The principals point to a so-called “PILOT Request Letter” instead, which would at least in theory allow a workaround to get a no-bid contract. (PILOT is an acronym for Payment In Lieu of Taxes, a common feature of public/private projects.)
Gillman, however, claims that the unsolicited proposal was a collaborative process by the City, SEDA, and Forsyth Commons, which would appear to undermine the spirit if not the letter of the state law regarding competitive bidding.
Another piece of evidence, he says, is the Development Agreement between those three entities in which a project price is discussed “pursuant to a sole source designation” for Jepson’s company.
“So [Jepson] will make money off of the bond issue, and also as one of the owners of the project,” Gillman opines.
Zoning for project voided after campaign donations uncovered
While the demolition portion of the project does have a full legal green light – as indicated by the now-bulldozed funeral home mentioned above – the actual zoning change that would permit the office campus portion of the project to move ahead is currently dead in the water.
The once-approved change to a TN2 zone in January 2025 – which would have allowed the office’s planned footprint – was officially “abandoned,” in legal terms, after non-disclosure of political donations was uncovered.
Specifically, the zoning change was rendered void after a lawsuit was brought detailing thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to local officials by several of the investors in the project. The donations were absent from legal documents in the zoning proceedings.
“Failure to disclose campaign contributions in a rezoning application is a misdemeanor crime in Georgia under O.C.G.A. Section 33-67A-4,” says Gillman.
Now, he says, “They’re back at TN1 zoning, which doesn’t allow for 100 percent lot coverage” that’s planned for the office campus.
The existing legal TN1 zoning only allows for 60 percent lot coverage – way below what the original project calls for.
This means, simply put, that the entire project should be on hold pending zoning and pending a ruling on the lawsuit.
Is the bond issue legal?
The Savannah Economic Development Authority approved the $35 million bond for the underground garage just last week.
Gillman writes to the SEDA Board of Directors that the bond meeting violated Georgia Open Records law and should therefore be void:
I hereby demand that you rescind approval of the Forsyth Park Partners Bond Parameters’ Resolution as a result of violating Georgia’s Open Meetings Act. At today’s SEDA meeting, the Board called a closed executive session to discuss the Forsyth Park Garage Parameters Bond. Members of the public as well as media were asked to leave the room. However, Jeff Jepson (principal with Evans GC and Forsyth Commons Holdings), Paddison (Forsyth Commons Holdings Principal), and lawyers for Forsyth Commons Holdings and SEDA were allowed to participate in the closed executive session. Following the executive session, the Board unanimously approved the Parameters Bond Resolution.
According to the Open and Public Meetings Act (GA Code Section 50-14-1), “any resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other official action of an agency adopted, taken, or made at a meeting which is not open to the public as required by this chapter shall not be binding.”
In addition, there is a potential violation of the bond covenant if the project's costs can be proven to be inflated due to the lack of competitive bidding.
Underground garage will be in a Flood Zone
There is also the issue of how flood-prone the underground garage site might be, in a neighborhood already notorious for street flooding during heavy rains.
In Gillman’s view, the bidding and zoning issues are enough to void the bond issue themselves. But the issue of Flood Zones is a whole other ball game, because it involves a potential safety hazard, underwritten by public money for private benefit.
Specifically, the planned parking garage – three stories underground – is in a special high-risk “AE” Flood Zone – not Flood Zone X as is indicated in some of the project documents.
Gillman has filed charges with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, alleging that:
In the multi-party development agreement, the parties failed to accurately represent the Project’s location in a flood zone or the fact that the present zoning of the land would not allow the Project to proceed under existing law. I believe these actions could (i) violate the Bond covenants at closing; and (ii) call into question the Bonds’ certification, validation, and ratings.
Gillman alleges that:
The Development Agreement also incorrectly references the Project being in Flood Zone X, suggesting the Savannah Flood Damage Protection Ordinance’s AE Flood Zone waterproofing requirements were not addressed in the Parking Garage’s revised pricing.
“You can’t build an underground garage in an area especially prone to flooding,” Gillman states.
“This project is in a Special Flood Zone, in the Bilbo Basin. There is threat of injury to life and limb in the event of flooding in the garage.”
City eliminates oversight
In a more under-the-radar move, the City of Savannah will grant Forsyth Commons a de facto exemption to certain aspects of local government oversight.
In a memo from City Manager Melder, the Historic Preservation Commission is informed as a matter of legal obligation that Certificates Of Appropriateness will not be needed for the Forsyth Common construction – since the addresses will be deeded to the City by the developers who currently own them.
No real benefit to public
This point is more subjective, and essentially claims that the general public is unlikely to receive a net benefit from the parking garage.
The garage documents themselves say that of the 412 total parking spots, about 350 – or 85% of the parking spots -- would be utilized by private tenants from 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday.
In addition, there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure that private tenant vehicles vacate the garage in hours outside the 9-5, Monday-Friday range.
Referring to Hunter Maclean having its office relocated to the new campus, Gillman – himself an attorney – jokes that “how many lawyers do you know who work 9 to 5?”
Gillman points out that City Manager Jay Melder admitted in a Memorandum to City Council this past August that the underground spaces would be “mostly devoted to the above ground building tenants.”
While an array of political, economic, and legal powers are currently doing all they can to push ahead past these well-documented issues with the Forsyth Commons project, Gillman hopes that it’s not too late to get public opinion focused on it.