Старая пара подала в суд на завод Scout Motors и округ Ричланд из-за ущерба от строительства

BLYTHEWOOD — An elderly couple has filed suit against Scout Motors and Richland County after they say construction at the Scout factory drove them out of their home of 40 years. William Shives, 92, and Barbara Shives, 84, filed suit against the county and carmaker on Aug. 7, alleging that construction work at the 1,100-acre Scout Motors plant has forced them to move from their home and 24-acre property directly adjacent to the site. “They hoped that the work next door would be carried out in a manner that would let them remain in the house they intended to live in for the rest of their lives,” an attorney for the homeowners wrote in court documents. “They bring this action because that did not happen.” What the lawsuit says happened The couple alleges that during construction at the Scout plant: - The water table beneath their home changed to the point that their septic tank, which they said operated without issue for four decades, ceased functioning properly and has required costly, sometimes weekly pumping. - Near-daily blasting has shaken their home and thrown rocks and debris onto their property, once hitting a visitor in the eye. - “Sediment-laden stormwater” has run from the construction site onto the Shives’ property, washing out their driveway. The Shiveses made Scout Motors aware of the issues on the property, they allege. A contractor from the plant site delivered a load of gravel after the driveway was washed away, but the condition was not remedied, the couple said in the lawsuit. The Shiveses have since moved out of their home, according to court filings. “They have been driven out of the home they expected to live in for the rest of their lives, and now they have been forced to purchase a smaller house away from the place and the people they have known,” their lawyer wrote in court filings. William and Barbara Shives seek compensation for the physical damage to their property, as well as to cover reduction of the property’s value and their enjoyment of the property, plus pre-judgment interest and attorney’s fees, according to court filings. What Scout said In a statement, a Scout spokesperson said the company could not comment on the specifics of the allegations as they are now a matter of pending litigation. “What we can say is that Scout Motors remains committed to open engagement with the community and to ensuring that our construction activities are carried out safely and in accordance with applicable requirements and permits,” the spokesperson said. “As this project moves forward, our focus remains on being a responsible neighbor while delivering significant economic opportunities for the people of South Carolina." The spokesperson said the company had “gone out of our way” to stay in communication with the Shives family, neighboring property owners and the broader community. A county spokesperson declined to comment on the pending litigation, which was initially reported by The State newspaper. Scout expects to employ 5,000 people and produce 200,000 vehicles a year at the Blythewood plant once the facility is completed in 2028. The state Legislature passed a record $1.3 billion incentives package to bring the plant to South Carolina in 2023. The S.C. Department of Commerce has been pushing the state legislature to fold an extra $150 million into the state’s budget to cover cost overruns at the site, but lawmakers have been resistant. Lawmakers cut a deal on Aug. 11 to delay funding the $150 million gap until a legislative audit can be completed. Contractors awaiting payment for their work will be compensated via other mechanisms. State regulators also fined Richland County $3 million for allegedly allowing sediment and other pollutants to escape from the construction site into nearby waterways in May 2025. The county and its contractors have jurisdiction over the site clearing for the factory as part of the incentives deal created to draw in the car manufacturer. County officials have publicly stated that county taxpayers will not foot that bill. The county previously told The State newspaper the costs would be covered by the state and unidentified third parties. A county spokesperson did not respond to questions about the status of those fines on Aug. 12.