Best Window Repair in Mount Pleasant, SC

CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) - Polls closed at 7 p.m. Tuesday across South Carolina in local races that state election officials say have a direct impact on the day-to-day lives of people in the Lowcountry.

Charleston County election leaders expect voter turnout to hover around 20 percent this year, with only municipal races on the ballot and no statewide or federal contests. Charleston County Board of Elections Executive Director Isaac Cramer said even though these races don’t attract the same attention as presidential elections, they are still critical.

“Municipal elections just don’t have the same level of engagement,” Cramer said. “Although it’s not national headlines, they are local issues that affect each one of us in our day-to-day lives. Our goal is just to let people know that there’s an election, there’s time to do your research, look up the candidates, but know that today’s election does impact your day-to-day life.”

Cramer said the ballots across the county vary by city and district, with many positions up for grabs.

“Across Charleston County, we have many municipalities voting for mayor, for council, we have CPW, which is Commissioner for Public Works, we have watershed commissioners,” Cramer said. “So we’ll have a wide range of different things on the ballot, but for a lot of the city of Charleston this is very important. You won’t have council on your ballot unless you live in an even district. If you live in an odd district, you will only have CPW on your ballot.”

Click here for the Live 5 2025 Voter Guide.

Some of the key local elections include the mayors’ races in Mount Pleasant, Isle of Palms, Folly Beach, Sullivan’s Island, and Lincolnville. Several city and town council seats are also on the ballot in Charleston, Summerville, Goose Creek, and Moncks Corner, along with a special election for State House District 98. In total, dozens of municipal offices from water commissioners to council members are up for grabs across Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester counties.

Election officials say the quiet nature of local election years means most polling places are not expected to be crowded. The best time to avoid lines is typically early afternoon, avoiding lunch and evening rush hours.

More than 3.35 million people are registered to vote statewide. In the Tri-County area, Charleston County has 272,000 registered voters, Berkeley County has about 155,000, and Dorchester County has just under 105,000.

Greenville County has the most registered voters in the state with just under 341,000, while Allendale County has the fewest at about 4,000.

Voters heading to the polls today will need a photo ID, though it does not have to be a Real ID used for air travel. Those voting absentee must ensure their ballots are returned to the Charleston County Board of Voter Registration and Elections by 7 p.m.

Click here to verify your voter registration, get a sample ballot or find your voting location.

Absentee ballots must be returned to the Charleston County Board of Voter Registration and Elections by 7 p.m.

All polling locations offer accessible parking spots, doorways, railings and paths. Residents with disabilities may receive help during the voting process but must tell a poll manager if assistance is needed. Voters can choose anyone to help except their employer, an agent of their employer, or an officer or agent of their union.

Curbside voting is available for those with disabilities or voters 65 years or older. Poll managers monitor the area every 15 minutes to assist anyone who cannot stand in line.

Polls are open until 7 p.m.

MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C. (WCSC) - Charleston County and Charleston Habitat for Humanity are breaking ground on affordable housing in one of the Lowcountry’s least affordable areas.

The project will provide four new homes for Mount Pleasant families.

The initiative is part of the county’s Affordable Housing Land Acquisition Grant Program, which helps nonprofit and for-profit developers acquire land for affordable housing. The project received a $350,000 grant, administered by the Charleston Redevelopment Corporation.

Charleston County originally allocated $2.5 million from American Rescue Plan Act funds for the program. Eric Davis, Charleston County’s Director of Housing and Land Management, said each project includes a minimum 20-year affordability period and, with organizations like Habitat for Humanity, these commitments can last even longer.

“I think success 10 years down the road looks like it’s easier for folks to both purchase a home and live closer to where they work and where they want to go out for entertainment and things like that,” Davis said.

He added that access to affordable housing impacts has an impact far beyond the homeowner themselves.

“It’s not just someone’s personal finances and personal situation that we’re trying to help by providing attainable housing,” he added. “It’s all connected to our economy, our infrastructure, everything,” Davis said.

He also said that more attainable housing could be a solution to many problems the Tri-County area faces.

“It’s really all interconnected when we think about it. If there’s not affordable housing near where you work and where you play, then that pushes folks out to the perimeter of the metro area, which creates stress on traffic and public transportation. So we’re trying to look at this holistically,” Davis said.

Families earning between 35% and 80% of the area median income qualify for any Habitat home. According to U.S. News and World Report, that number is just over $117,000 in Mount Pleasant. While the average two-bedroom rental in Charleston costs $1,600 to $1,800 a month, Habitat homeowners will pay closer to $1,000 monthly for their mortgage and ownership expenses because payments are capped at 30% of gross income.

Lynn Bowley, the chief executive officer of Charleston Habitat for Humanity, said these four homes are a crucial step toward addressing the affordability crisis where many essential workers are being priced out.

“You probably already know a bunch of people who would qualify for a Habitat Home. It could be first responders, first-year teachers. It could be the people who work in the medical field who aren’t the doctors and nurses,” Bowley said.

Bowley also said that being able to build in accessible locations is essential for success.

“It’s really important to be able to build in places like Mount Pleasant where we are not putting people in an area where there is no access to health care or food or schools,” Bowley said.

But, Bowley said that as the need for affordable housing grows, so do the challenges; finding places to build is one of them.

“The hard part is identifying land that’s located in a desirable area and capable of being subdivided. We don’t pass on the cost of the land to our homeowners because they’re capped at 80% of the area median income. So, we need to be as cost-conscious as possible,” she said.

Bowley said Habitat is also exploring multifamily properties, tiny home communities and potential land trusts to maximize density without buying additional land.

“Four houses is always a big, big deal, especially because we’ll be able to build all four of them together. So, it’s almost like having a little tiny neighborhood,” she said.

Construction is expected to be completed within two years.

MOUNT PLEASANT — A handful of residents claim they’ve been blocked from Mayor Will Haynie’s Facebook pages and the exclusions have raised questions about free speech and how elected officials use social media — an issue that’s not always black and white.

Haynie has served as mayor of Mount Pleasant since 2015. Currently running for re-election against political newcomer Curt Thomas, he has two accounts on the social media platform where he often shares information about town-sponsored events, photos, videos, news articles and general life updates. One is denoted as his personal page.

“Husband, Father, ‘Dog Person’ Who Happens To Be Mayor of Mount Pleasant, SC. Personal page,” the introduction at the top of the account reads.

A second profile, “Will Haynie for Mayor,” is designated for his re-election campaign. According to the intro, the account is funded by donors. Here, Haynie shares information on campaign events and speaking engagements. Occasionally, he will share posts from his personal page here, too.

“(T)he admins control the right to restrict content and users,” the introduction states.

Some residents claim they’ve been blocked from commenting and viewing at least one of these accounts, and in some cases, both.

Matt Varble recently moved to Mount Pleasant. He said he’s been banned from both of Haynie’s pages after he left a comment disagreeing with the mayor’s stance on a recent property tax increase. Another resident, Ellen Moore, said both she and her husband have been unable to view these pages for several years.

Two sitting council members, John Iacofano and Daniel Brownstein, said they’ve also been restricted from viewing at least one of these accounts.

The reported social media restrictions brought up the issue of free speech and access to public officials.

“Blocking constituents — and possibly even fellow council members — over a factual disagreement feels inconsistent with the principles of transparency and open dialogue expected from an elected official,” Varble said.

But Haynie said neither of the pages in question are government accounts, and they aren’t intended to give followers the impression they are affiliated officially with the town of Mount Pleasant. His re-election account is a proprietary campaign page.

“If I buy an ad in The Post and Courier, they are not entitled to put how they feel about me or my stance on things in the ad I buy,” Haynie said. “My social media page is managed by a paid social media management company. I am paying for all of that. If somebody wants to come on there and start taking on the people that are making legitimate comments or asking legitimate questions or harassing them … I'm not paying to give them a following that they haven't bought.”

Recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling addresses issue

A recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in Lindke v. Freed says public officials can be held liable for blocking constituents on social media — but not always.

In 2022, a Michigan man named Kevin Lindke sued James Freed, the city manager of Port Huron, for blocking him from the manager’s Facebook account. Lindke left comments critical of the city’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. Freed eventually blocked him.

Lindke argued that because Freed routinely shared communications from other city officials and other city-related news on that Facebook page, restricting his access was a First Amendment violation.

Freed, who first established his Facebook account while in college, argued he was not operating the page in his capacity as a public official, but rather as a private citizen. In 2024, SCOTUS affirmed Freed’s position, and developed a two-pronged test for future cases.

“The Court held that public officials could be held liable under the First Amendment for blocking constituents and other interested parties from viewing and commenting on their social media accounts, but only if their social media activity constitutes official government communications,” said Scott Bauries, a law professor at the University of South Carolina.

The test includes two parts: if an elected official has the authority to speak on a government’s behalf and if they were truly acting in an official capacity when posting on social media, including blocking users.

“It may also depend on whether he issues disclaimers when his postings are not intended as government communications. It may depend on whether he completely blocks people from viewing and commenting, or whether he selectively deletes some comments from purely personal postings,” Bauries said.

Just because an account is held by someone who happens to be a public official, it does not mean every post is an official communication, said Seth Gordon, a visiting professor teaching Constitutional Law at the Charleston School of Law.

“Just because you're a public employee doesn't mean you give up your First Amendment rights as a private citizen,” Gordon.

MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C. (WCIV) — Stephen Wood, the archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, faces allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and plagiarism, according to a report published by The Washington Post on Thursday.

Wood's local ministry, St. Andrew’s Church in Mount Pleasant, confirmed a complaint had been filed against the reverend in a statement provided to News 4.

"The leadership of St. Andrew's Church is aware that a complaint has been submitted to the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) relating to allegations made against Archbishop Steve Wood," the statement from the church reads. "Because this is an ongoing process, the Wardens, Vestry, and Staff of St. Andrew’s cannot comment on these allegations."

Wood, 62, is accused by a former children's ministry director of putting his hand against the back of her head and trying to kiss her in his office in April 2024, two months before he was elected as the archbishop, according to the report from The Washington Post. The woman who levied the accusation also claimed that he gave her thousands of dollars in "unexpected payments from church offers" before the attempted kiss.

According to The Post's reporting, Wood also faces complaints from priests that he plagiarized sermons and bullied and disparaged church staffers before he became archbishop.

“I do not believe these complaints have merit," Wood said in a statement. "I trust the process outlined in our canons to bring clarity and truth in these matters.”

Church staff explained that in accordance with canon law, as soon as the complaint is validated as a presentment, Bishop Ray Sutton, Dean of the Province, will convene a Board of Inquiry to thoroughly investigate the accusations included in the presentment and determine if there are reasonable grounds to pursue an ecclesiastical trial.

The Anglican Church in North America was formed approximately 16 years ago by former members of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, both part of the global Anglican Communion.

Around 700 congregations split from the historic communion, accusing it of promoting progressive theology and social causes, particularly concerning sexuality and the ordination of women.

The denomination does not allow women to serve as bishops and considers same-sex relationships sinful.

The Anglican Church in North America includes more than 1,000 congregations, mostly in the United States, with an estimated 128,000 members.

In 2020, Wood contracted COVID-19 and was placed on a ventilator, which he credits with saving his life.

MOUNT PLEASANT, S.C. (WCSC) - The Mount Pleasant Chamber of Commerce hosted a mayoral and town council candidate forum Thursday night.

With dozens of residents in attendance, the forum brought all the candidates for mayor and town council together to share their vision for the town’s future, as well as their priorities and solutions for challenges the town faces. There is one mayoral seat and four town council seats open during this election.

The candidates shared priorities, including solving traffic issues, raising pay for first responders, increasing civic engagement, developing better infrastructure and looking into flood resiliency programs.

John Meissner, a Mount Pleasant resident for the past 25 years, says he gained a better understanding of where all the candidates stand.

“I thought the forum was great,” Meissner says. “It gave me a better idea of who was keeping things organized in Mount Pleasant. All of them seem to be very well qualified.”

Candidates for Mayor include Will Haynie, who is a two-term incumbent, and Curt Thomas. Haynie was first elected in 2017.

Haynie, who is running for his third term, introduced himself as a lover of the town and a mayor who gets things done.

“If you love the town and you love its people, everything else falls in place and I fell in love with this town, I’m in love with this town now and I try to do everything for this town out of that love for you and the town we all love,” Haynie says.

Thomas defined himself as new and said the town needs to change.

“We’ve been told to be patient while our town’s traffic gets worse,” Thomas says. “Our infrastructure is an issue. Patience is costing us and it’s the very reason why we are here. Let’s be clear, the real risk isn’t change, it’s having the same four years of this leadership.”

Candidates for town council include Alexandra Crosby, Jenny DeSart, Brianna Harmon, Perry Rourk, Craig S. Russack and Kathryn Whitaker. Incumbents running again include John Iacofano, Gary K. Santos and Mike Tinkey.

All of the candidates were invited to participate, but three of the town council candidates were unable to attend.

Residents were able to submit questions for the moderators to ask the candidates. They brought up concerns regarding economic development, infrastructure, projects focused on resiliency and affordable housing.

“The nurses, the firemen, the policemen, a lot of them are not able to afford to live here,” Meissner says. “It’s like the problem is in the rest of the country, having affordable housing for people in the middle class is really important to me and I hope they find a way to make that happen.”

Many are also concerned about the traffic on Highway 41 and whether the town is going to widen it, build on top of marsh or go forward with Charleston’s Road to Compromise . Many of the candidates said they were against the Road to Compromise project and instead want to find another practical solution. Charleston County the plan amidst pushback from the town of Mount Pleasant this summer.

Candidates also had the opportunity to share their views on Mount Pleasant Way, a of connected multi-use pathways throughout the town for non-motorists. All the candidates said they supported the project, but some also brought up the importance of private property rights for communities and protecting the wetlands during construction.

The early voting period for this election began on Oct. 20 and ends on Oct. 31. The general election is on Nov. 4.