What was expected to be a definitive agreement between opposing factions over Spartanburg’s recently dismantled Clock Tower is now at somewhat of an uncertain crossroads.
On Oct. 8, 2025, officials with the City of Spartanburg and citizens against moving the Tower from its site on West Main Street reached an agreement to allow the City to proceed with a new development on the site, and to reconstruct the Tower in a new location.
The agreement came eight days after a temporary injunction was filed before 7th circuit court judge Mark Hayes against the City by Kimberly Branch and a group called Support the Spartanburg Clock Tower.
In the agreement, after City leaders determined that moving the Tower intact would be too great a safety risk, Branch and supporters assented to withdraw the injunction and subsequent suit, in exchange for the City consenting to dismantle and then rebuild the Tower and its historical elements on a new site, selected by City Council, after a study involving feasible locations and public input.
But Branch and others are now wondering when and if City officials will uphold their part of the bargain.
“I met with City Mayor Jerome Rice prior to the Nov. 24 Council meeting for an update, and the City manager Chris Story said there would be an announcement in January about the location,” Branch said. “But I haven’t heard from anyone since then about a definite timetable moving forward.”
Local attorney Wesley Stoddard, whose father was instrumental in getting the Tower erected, added that he too hasn’t had any indication.
“People want to know where it’s going to go, and right now we don’t know,” said Stoddard, who helped negotiate the terms of the settlement with the City. “Why haven’t we heard anything from the City manager to decide on a new location?”
The concern by Stoddard and Branch is borne out partly by the language in the settlement agreement, which says: ‘The City will in good faith move the project forward in a manner consistent with prudent city planning, construction, design, and implementation principles.’
But because the agreement does not specify a specific time frame for the Council to act, Charleston County attorney Blair Hahn pointed out that the project could either be shelved indefinitely, or that City leaders could “drag it out.”
“The plaintiff, or perhaps another interested party, will need to go back to court and push the lack of ‘good faith’ if the project doesn’t proceed,” Hahn said. “I would guess that it will never get built without the public continuing to push the issue.”
He warned, however, that even if the project is delayed for any period of time, proving a lack of good faith on the part of the City would be difficult.
“The city (manager) or the mayor could come up with all kinds of excuses as to why it is moving slowly until the public forgets about it,” Hahn said. “Another issue will be the funds to do it. That could always be an obstacle if any given budget doesn’t have room for it, yet the city in ‘good faith’ is trying to make it work.”
The tower was dismantled this past November to make way for a redesigned, West-Main streetscape plan at Morgan Square: a development totaling $425 million to build a new 6-story, 152-room hotel; an adjacent office development called Fifth Third Park; and another residential development.
Christopher George, the City’s communications & engagement director, said that while he anticipates Council members taking up the matter of “establishing a site for the rebuilt tower early this year,” he made it clear that no action will take place without Council approval.
“City Council will approve the rebuilding of the clock tower, including the site and timeline,” he said. “We do not have a final cost estimate yet for the rebuilding. Once finalized, funding for the construction will come from the City’s general fund.”
Which means that if this funding intention remains unchanged, the rebuilding of the Tower would come at taxpayer expense.
But right now, Branch, Stoddard, and many others are waiting for an answer about the Tower’s new home.
“I would personally like to see the tower rebuilt several blocks over from West Main Street, on the site of the new courthouse (erected in 2024),” Stoddard said. “The Clock Tower has become an iconic symbol representing the City – $10,000 of the money used to build it in 1976-79 came from 20,000 school children in a penny-project. And even if it’s on a new site, we want it to stay.”
Branch agreed that the courthouse site is her choice as well – and while she and Stoddard and other Tower supporters are not technically protected by a time frame or a non-tax funding source, they intend to see this matter through.
“I got 3,811 people to sign the original petition to keep the Tower,” Branch said. “And we will do everything we need to in order to see that it remains a visible part of our history and heritage.”
