BLYTHEWOOD — More than 50 people packed the Blythewood Town Council meeting Monday night in response to a Facebook post by Mayor Sloan Griffin, which circulated widely, suggesting the entire 29016 zip code be annexed into the Town of Blythewood. The other four council members moved quickly to distance themselves from Griffin’s proposal and 14 of the 15 people who spoke during public comment pushed back against being annexed into the town. (See their comments in sidebar on jump.)
At the conclusion of the public’s comments, Griffin said he wanted to calm residents who filled council chambers.
“Tonight is not a night to vote and approve annexation, period,” Griffin said. “Tonight is not the night to say yes to annexation.”
He said the issue arose after citizens living outside town limits asked him how they could become part of Blythewood. He said he asked the town attorney to research the feasibility of the annexation of 29016 only to educate himself and provide answers to what he called his constituents who wanted to annex into the town.
“This was me asking, ‘What’s the process?’” Griffin said. “Help me understand so I can explain it to citizens who are asking.”
Annexation Not a Priority
But several council members said the discussion itself created confusion and wrongly suggested the town council was considering a sweeping expansion.
Councilman Rich McKenrick noted that during an eight-hour strategic planning session in January, council identified five priorities for 2026 — beautification projects, public safety planning, hiring a permanent town manager, operational and software upgrades, and long-range planning initiatives.
Annexation was not among them, he said.
“I want everybody in this room to hear me when I say that,” McKenrick said. “This is not a priority or a goal for us. Hard stop.”
Griffin insisted that he was only asking the attorney to educate himself on the annexation process and possibility.
Councilwoman Andrea Fripp, however, noted that the same day (Feb. 11, 2026) that he sent an email to the town attorney asking him to research the feasibility of annexing all of 29016, he also posted on social media that, “If you live in 29016, you should be a town resident.”
“You posted that before you even got the information from the town attorney,” Fripp said. “For me, this was a surprise when I saw it on the agenda, because to piggyback off Councilman McKenrick, this was not a priority for council. I didn’t know where this came from.
“For me, all I’m saying is this caught me off guard because it wasn’t anything that council discussed. This is your project,” she said. “Please don’t call this a council agenda item because it’s not.”
Councilwoman Trish Hovis echoed that position even more directly.
“I believe we’ve caused distress to the majority of citizens sitting here tonight because of what was placed on the agenda and transferred to social media. After that, it was just a free-for-all, right?
“I believe we are playing fast and loose with the agenda,” Hovis said. She added that council has a responsibility to avoid placing speculative items before the public without consensus.
“Read my lips,” Hovis said. “I oppose annexation by referendum.”
Who Wanted the Discussion?
Councilman Donald Brock said it was important to clarify that the annexation idea did not originate from council as a whole.
“There is no ‘we’ at this table that supports annexation,” Brock said. “There is one individual that put this item on the agenda tonight,” he said, pointing to Griffin.
Brock said residents should understand the discussion reflected Griffin’s inquiry, not a council initiative.
He also questioned the practicality of annexing an entire ZIP code, noting the town would potentially grow from roughly 5,500 residents to tens of thousands almost overnight.
“It would just be way too cumbersome,” Brock said, adding that such expansion would create an enormous administrative burden for a small town government.
How Annexation Works
Officials said a study alone could require extensive legal research, zoning analysis, infrastructure review and staff time — potentially costing thousands of dollars.
Under South Carolina statutes, municipalities cannot arbitrarily annex property or simply absorb an entire ZIP code. There are only three legal annexation methods:
- 100% Petition Method – used when all property owners in an area request annexation
- 75% Petition Method – requires approval from 75 % of property owners in an area
- Election Method – used under specific statutory conditions
In most cases, residents whose properties are contiguous to town limits can voluntarily annex into Blythewood at any time by petitioning the town. A townwide referendum is not required.
Council members repeatedly emphasized that annexation begins with residents requesting inclusion – not municipalities forcing expansion.
Griffin Defended his Actions.
“If citizens ask me a question, I’m going to go get the answer,” he said. “Do not fault me for doing what I would do for any one of these citizens.”
He also said improving transparency in council communications was part of the reason he raised the issue publicly.
No Vote
Because the item was listed as discussion only, council took no vote.
29016 Residents Speak Out
All but one speaker during public comment opposed a proposed referendum to annex the entire 29016 ZIP code into the Town of Blythewood. Here’s what they said:
Jeff Brown, Rural property owner
“I’m not certain what benefits my rural property would receive from being annexed into the town. The rural sections of the Blythewood zip code provide the fabric that has knit this community together for years — cattle land, timber tracts, horse farms and old farmsteads. If annexation were pursued, those properties should be exempt from town taxation because of the benefits they already provide.”
Matt Mose, Engineer and Mullis Road resident
“Surely the idea of a blanket annexation of 29016 is a mistake. This town has neither the reason nor the resources to accomplish this without sure disaster, and I don’t want or need the services the town might offer. Without a legally required petition from residents, this conversation needs to die right here and now.”
Joe Trapp, Longtime resident
“I do not desire to be annexed into the town, and I do not care to give another group of elected officials control over my property and livelihood. Annexation brings ordinances, licensing requirements and inspections — and what do we get in return? Absolutely nothing.”
Unnamed Speaker, Rural resident
“I already spend too much time worrying about what county council and the state legislature are doing. If anyone wants to be annexed, it should be voluntary — taxes should be voluntary. If the town wants participation, use a 100-percent petition and let people choose.”
Anna Stolper, 25-year resident
“Many of us live outside town limits because we love the beauty and community of this rural area. To annex the entire zip code would not bring unity — it would create division. If people want to live in town, they can move into town limits, but those outside should be allowed to remain there.”
George Walker, Neighboring rural resident
“The rural areas surrounding Blythewood provide the fabric and texture that make the town special. Focus on making the town itself attractive and safe, and allow those of us outside town limits to remain good neighbors. That way you keep the best of both worlds.”
Charles Booth, Lifelong resident and farmer
“I’ve read legislation protecting agricultural land, and farmland annexation requires the property owner’s permission. Farmers like me are not signing off on that. Agricultural landowners should have the final say.”
Ryan Beamer, Small business owner
“My concern is for small businesses that might never exist because of changes like this. Blythewood has always allowed people to start small — produce stands, family businesses, hobbies that grow into livelihoods. Annexation could add regulations that prevent that kind of opportunity.”
Brent Irwin, Area resident
“From a business perspective, this feels like swinging for the fences. Expanding the town seven times in land size and five times in population may not be the right approach. I encourage dialogue with the community before pursuing something this large.”
Jean Norris, Town resident
“I already live in town and pay a five-percent franchise fee on my power bill. How much money does the town collect now, and is annexation a way to collect franchise fees from the entire 29016 area? Residents deserve transparency about the financial impact.”
Ms. Krabs, 34-year resident
“What is the goal of the town with annexation? Citizens need more information about how this would affect development, infrastructure and businesses before any vote. Growth is happening quickly, but it needs to be managed smartly with the big picture in mind.”
James Dutchess, Mount Valley Road resident
“If taxes go up on apartments after annexation, those costs will just be passed down to renters. Somebody’s going to make up those taxes, and it isn’t fair to residents who end up paying more.”
Christina Godwin, Lifelong resident & small business owner
“We moved here and stayed here because we enjoy a simple rural life and don’t want suburban structure. Annexation could disrupt family businesses and add regulations that make it harder to live the way we’ve chosen. It may even cause families like mine to leave.”
Bobbi Young, Area resident
“We don’t need more government — government will do what government will do. I’ve watched decisions get made despite community opposition before. Residents should be cautious about expanding government authority and future tax changes.”
William DuBard Jr., Cedar Creek landowner
“My family has lived on this land since the early 1700s, and it has always been farmland. Town rules don’t fit rural Cedar Creek. You’re talking about stopping 300 years of history.”
