The road can’t always be smooth

For those who zip down Interstate 85 between Laurens and Woodruff roads at highway speeds, it is difficult to appreciate the amount of construction that is taking place on the CU-ICAR campus.

Speed is an appropriate word in more ways than one. Buildings have sprung out of the ground in record time. Most notably, CU-ICAR’s Collaboration 3 structure, which faces the interstate and is occupied by the Timken Co., was completed in less than a year.

But the course of development didn’t always run smoothly. And a legal battle loaded with drama created plenty of speed bumps.

Establishing CU-ICAR called for a complex series of negotiations and required that a diverse group of people and organizations come together to achieve a common goal. The state government, including Gov. Mark Sanford and former Gov. Jim Hodges, Clemson University, the city of Greenville, the estate of John D. Hollingsworth, BMW and developer Clifford Rosen were the major players.

The eventual development would depend on whether the state and BMW would agree to provide funding for a graduate engineering program on property controlled by Rosen.

The result was not only that CU-ICAR’s Campbell Graduate Engineering Center came to fruition along with corporate neighbors such as Timken and AT&T, but also that Rosen would file a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against BMW. Rosen’s suit alleged that BMW engineered a “far-reaching government conspiracy to harm him” by asking state officials and Clemson to breach an earlier agreement, according to documents attached to BMW’s motion for summary judgment.

Let’s rewind. BMW’s law firm, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd P.A. in Greenville, traced the auto manufacturer’s partnership with Clemson to 1992, when BMW first located in South Carolina and wanted to provide additional training for its workers, as well as to foster faculty exchanges between Clemson and the Technical University of Munich.

In 2001, BMW suggested that they would be interested in partnering with Clemson to create a graduate program in automotive engineering.  At the same time, Clemson was exploring the possibility of creating a presence in Greenville as well as the development of a wind tunnel and museum for the racing industry. When Clemson presented the ideas to BMW, the automaker indicated it was not interested in funding a wind tunnel.

Enter Rosen. The developer in late 2001 told Don Rice, a sports science employee of Clemson, that if he could find at least 100 acres of land suitable for both the Center and the project he wanted to develop around it, Rosen would be willing to donate 20-25 acres to Clemson for the Center for Motor Sports Excellence. He agreed to work with Clemson to develop a master plan for use of the property that would be compatible to both the University’s educational and testing needs as well as the commercial needs of his project, according to court filings.

These negotiations were never completed.

Rosen acquired land in excess of 100 acres from the Hollingsworth Foundation, which, according to court records, agreed to sell to him only because he was working with Clemson. But Sanford’s questions about the proposed development’s value to taxpayers prompted a restructuring of the deal.

Shortly thereafter, the state passed an economic development bond act that assisted BMW in funding the graduate program for Clemson, provided they invest $400 million and create 400 jobs. The state also told Rosen there would be no funding for a wind tunnel.

In October 2003, the Clemson University Real Estate Foundation and Rosen reached an agreement that provided for the sale of land for the new campus. Clemson could acquire 250 of the 407-acre parcel without any development rights or fees for Rosen. CU-ICAR would be located adjacent to the land Rosen purchased. BMW and the state agreed to site the graduate school at CU-ICAR.

Real estate records show that Rosen’s gross profit was $7.4 million, yet BMW’s filings show that he claimed more than $44 million in charitable tax deductions for the land transactions covered by this new agreement.

Despite his profits, Rosen sued BMW in 2005. The motion for summary judgment, which came in October 2007, indicated that Rosen “could not show that BMW acted without justification for an ‘improper purpose,’” or that there was a “civil conspiracy.”

The motion passed.