Richland One: Procurement, Power, and Prejudice — The Attack on B&G Landscaping
- CUBNSC
- Jul 18
- 7 min read
By Javar Juarez | CUBNSC - Columbia, S.C.
In recent months, a high-stakes controversy has emerged surrounding B&G Landscaping of South Carolina, a company operated by Mary Linda Able, and its working relationship with Richland County School District One. Allegations reported by The State newspaper have triggered legal action, community outrage, and a renewed conversation about race, transparency, and power in public contracting. But the story, like so many in South Carolina politics, begins long before the headlines—specifically, with the collapse of a project once known as the Vince Ford Early Learning Center.
Once heralded as a cornerstone of early childhood education, the Vince Ford Early Learning Center was envisioned as a transformative development in Richland One now sits in ruins. Named after the late Vice Chair Vince Ford—himself a champion of underserved youth—the facility was poised to deliver state-of-the-art instruction and serve as a model for equity-driven education.
That vision was abruptly abandoned.
Following a surge in politically motivated scrutiny, including intervention by State Superintendent Ellen Weaver and key Republican figures at the statehouse, the project was terminated under circumstances that remain controversial. Reporting from the Columbia Urban Broadcast Network (CUBNSC) and other independent media outlets reveal how external political actors pressured the district into halting the initiative, citing financial mismanagement and board dysfunction—claims many insiders viewed as a thin veil for ideological interference.
This decision not only devastated the community’s hopes for a much-needed educational resource, but also sparked a chilling effect on contractors and partners affiliated with the project. B&G Landscaping, having been awarded work on beautification and site preparation, would soon find itself squarely in the crosshairs of that same narrative.
Who is Involved?
Mary Linda Able affectionately known as "the Cake Lady" for her delicious homemade pound cakes;- is the legal owner and operator of several business entities including B&G Landscaping of South Carolina, LLC; B&G Services, LLC; Palm-Tastic Trees, LLC; and the now inactive Blooming and Grooming Landscaping Services, LLC. The allegations raised publicly have blurred distinctions between these legally separate entities. At the heart of the defamation complaint is the claim that opposing counsel and media outlets have inaccurately attributed work and legal responsibility to the wrong entity, thereby causing reputational harm and financial damage.
What Happened?
The controversy centers around allegations that B&G Landscaping was awarded a contract with Richland One without fulfilling prerequisites such as proper licensing, current tax payments, and insurance coverage. It is further claimed that the company overbilled the district, charged for equipment that should have been included in unit pricing, and performed work outside its authorized scope. Media reports and legal filings, particularly by attorney Christopher P. Kenney in a separate case, have asserted that the company conducted unauthorized site work and failed to comply with procurement procedures.
However, Ms. Able’s court filings contend that these claims are both factually inaccurate and legally misleading. Specifically, she states that limited emergency sandbagging work was performed by B&G Services, not Blooming and Grooming Landscaping Services. According to the filing, opposing counsel knowingly submitted altered invoices to the court that bore the incorrect business name, and subsequently used this misrepresentation to obtain a subpoena for expansive financial and personal records. These actions were then amplified by press coverage on WIS-TV and in The State, which failed to verify the distinctions between the business entities.
When and Where Did It Occur?
The events in question span from December 2020 through 2025. The emergency sandbagging effort, which has been misrepresented as major construction or environmental mitigation work, took place in March 2024. Legal filings indicate that the erroneous subpoena was issued shortly thereafter. The media coverage followed in 2024 and 2025, culminating in The State's July 17, 2025 article. The relevant work occurred in Richland County, South Carolina, including a residential neighborhood near Twin Oaks Way.
Why Is This Important?
From Ms. Able’s perspective, the stakes involve more than just contract compliance—they include the integrity of the judicial process and the preservation of her personal and professional reputation. Her complaint alleges that the legal and media narrative was constructed on a foundation of incorrect entity identification, improper evidentiary submissions, and defamatory public statements. The lawsuit asserts claims of defamation, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud upon the court.
These claims, if substantiated, suggest that the media narrative may have been driven by inaccurate legal filings, which in turn influenced public perception and potentially damaged a local, woman-owned small business. The significance of distinguishing between B&G Services and Blooming and Grooming Landscaping Services is central to understanding the factual errors underlying the accusations.
Insider Testimony Undermines Media Narrative
A conversation with an individual closely familiar with Richland School District One’s procurement processes offers critical insight into vendor oversight and operational standards—insight that severely undercuts the narrative advanced by The State newspaper. According to this individual, the accusations levied against B&G Landscaping ignore how school district contracts are practically administered and how needs-based services are often authorized without requiring separate board approval.
Contrary to the article’s implications, the source explains that vendors under active contract are routinely asked to perform supplemental work when issues like flooding or erosion arise. These requests are often handled through internal departmental approval and do not require new contracts or board votes each time a service deviates slightly from original scope. The idea that flower pot sizes, irrigation line repairs, or landscape grading would be individually micromanaged by the superintendent or board members is described as both unrealistic and disingenuous.
Furthermore, the source suggests that the attack on B&G Landscaping is racially and politically motivated. As one of the few Black-owned vendors operating at scale within the district, B&G's visibility and value—nearly $2 million in awarded work—have made it a target. The insider compares this situation to previous efforts to discredit other Black professionals working for the district, suggesting a pattern of targeting minority contractors while protecting white-led entities.
The source also raises serious questions about the media’s role in shaping and timing public perception. The insider points out that The State newspaper’s stories frequently align with legal filings—sometimes appearing on the same day—suggesting a coordinated effort to manipulate public sentiment and apply pressure through parallel legal and media campaigns.
Perhaps most importantly, the speaker calls attention to environmental and property-specific factors behind at least one flooding-related complaint cited in the article. They note that the area in question was historically flood-prone and that previous homeowners had used adjacent public or school district land as informal runoff zones. In that light, blaming B&G Landscaping for changes in water flow caused by legitimate district maintenance work appears misleading at best—and malicious at worst.
Recent Legal Developments
On July 17, 2025, Mary Linda Able filed two significant motions in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas:
Motion for Emergency Calendar Placement (Filed at 9:44 AM)
Motion in Equity for Damages, Sanctions & Emergency Hearing (Filed at 9:43 AM)
These filings reveal a sharp escalation in Ms. Able’s legal strategy. She is not merely defending herself—she is aggressively seeking legal remedies for what she argues is a deliberate abuse of court processes by Attorney Christopher P. Kenney, who represents the opposing party in a separate dispute that has been conflated with her business.
In the filings, Ms. Able accuses Kenney of:
Submitting altered or misattributed invoices falsely naming her defunct business, Blooming and Grooming Landscaping Services, LLC
Using those documents to issue subpoenas for private financial records of companies and individuals not involved in the original dispute
Misleading the court and violating due process, effectively making her a legal target in a case she had no role in initiating
The documents cite multiple instances where documents dated in 2024 appear to have been doctored or submitted in bad faith to draw Ms. Able into a legal fight improperly. For example, an invoice presented as evidence by opposing counsel included the wrong business name (Blooming and Grooming) on work actually performed by B&G Services. The result: subpoenas for tax filings, financial records, and internal contracts—all unrelated to the claims at hand.
In her Emergency Motion for Sanctions, Ms. Able asks the court to:
Quash subpoenas issued against her businesses
Award damages for reputational and financial harm
Issue sanctions against Attorney Kenney and/or the plaintiff
Hold an emergency hearing to prevent further abuse of court procedure
Ms. Able’s filing is an attempt to reclaim control of the legal narrative and clarify the mischaracterizations that have been repeated in public and press forums. In doing so, she introduces critical distinctions between her legally separate business entities and exposes what she calls a "coordinated campaign" to discredit her.
She also names her own companies for the record:
Palm-Tastic Trees, LLC (legally established with relevant licensing)
B&G Services, LLC (entity tied to limited site work)
B&G Landscaping of South Carolina, LLC (active contracting vendor)
Blooming and Grooming Landscaping Services, LLC (now dissolved and unrelated to the claims in question)
This legal action reflects Ms. Able’s refusal to passively absorb public scrutiny without challenge. She is now asserting her own legal rights—not only in defense of her business—but to demand accountability from those who, she claims, have wielded the court system and the press as tools of targeted character assassination.
The upcoming court calendar will likely determine whether these claims of evidentiary fraud, defamation, and abuse of process hold merit under judicial review. For now, the July 17 filings serve as a major turning point in a battle that is no longer confined to procurement policies—but now raises far deeper questions about power, prejudice, and process in the halls of both the courthouse and the media.
Written and reported by the Columbia Urban Broadcast Network. Visit CUBNSC.com for ongoing updates and in-depth coverage of this developing story.
Reference Read:
Comments