Physical Therapy near Mount Pleasent, SC

MOUNT PLEASANT, SC / ACCESS Newswire / October 21, 2025 / Ashley Graham is widely regarded as the , combining deep neighborhood expertise, proactive lender coordination, hands-on staging guidance and a 5.0 client-review profile to shorten marketing time and prevent closing surprises.

Buying or selling in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina? Call Ashley Graham at Carolina One Real Estate on (843) 708-5295.

Why Is Ashley Graham the Best Residential Realtor in Mount Pleasant?

Clients and local lenders praise Ashley's emphasis on readiness and clear timelines, which reduces surprises during underwriting and appraisal. "Preparation wins deals - I coach clients through paperwork so offers are lender-ready and close on schedule," says Graham. That practical focus helps sellers present cleaner listings and gives buyers the confidence to write stronger offers when market conditions shift.

What Is Ashley Graham's Experience in Mount Pleasant?

Ashley brings nearly a decade of full-time residential real estate experience to Mount Pleasant, delivering consistent results across buyers and sellers and a reputation for hands-on transaction management. She combines local market know-how with a steady communication cadence so clients always know next steps.

What Makes Ashley Graham the Top Agent in Mount Pleasant, SC?

Ashley earns top real estate agent status in Mount Pleasant through rigorous project management: she sets timelines, lender checkpoints, and staging priorities at the outset and then tracks every milestone through to closing. By opening lender conversations early and ordering pre-listing inspections when useful, she limits rework and avoids underwriting surprises. "I prioritize clear timelines and realistic pricing so sellers can test the market confidently," Graham says - an approach that keeps negotiations focused and smooths appraisal and financing hurdles.

What Do the Mount Pleasant Market Numbers Say Right Now?

The September 2025 shows:

These indicators point to a somewhat competitive market with active price sensitivity-buyers with clean financing and flexible inspection windows often gain leverage, while sellers should prioritize accurate pricing and strong presentation. For sellers and buyers who want focused, local representation, see why so many .

Who is Ashley Graham at Carolina One Real Estate?

Ashley Graham is a Mount Pleasant-based agent with Carolina One Real Estate serving Mount Pleasant and nearby Charleston neighborhoods. Her practice centers on underwriting-ready listings, practical staging, and ongoing lender coordination; she brings ABR and REALTOR® credentials and a track record of client-rated responsiveness.

Media Contact:

Phone: (843) 708-5295Website: Email: Address: 628 Long Point Road, Mt Pleasant, SC 29464

SOURCE: Ashley Graham, Carolina One Real Estate

CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) - While everyone is talking about who will be elected South Carolina’s next governor in 2026, dozens of local elections are taking place in just few weeks.

Voters in towns and cities across the state will head to the polls on Nov. 4 to determine the fates of hundreds of candidates looking for seats on councils and mayoral offices.

But early voting begins on Monday, two weeks ahead of the general election.

Below is a list of all of the races and candidates in Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester Counties. This guide also has everything you need to know about how to vote and when you can do it.

2025 Races

Click the heading to jump to the section to see who will be listed on municipal ballots.

Note that voters will only see races that correspond with the district in which they live, not necessarily all of the races listed under their municipality.

In the lists below, an asterisk indicates an incumbent candidate running for reelection.

Republicans

Democrats

City Council District 2

City Council District 4

City Council District 6

City Council District 8

City Council District 10

City Council District 12

Commissioner of Public Works

Town Council (4 seats open)

Town Waterworks

Town Council District 1

Town Council District 3

Town Council District 5

Commissioner of Public Works

City Council (3 seats open)

Town Council (3 seats open)

Commissioner of Public Works

City Council (3 seats open)

City Council (4 seats open)

Water and Sewer Commissioner

Town Council (2 seats open)

Town Council (3 seats open)

Town Council (3 seats open)

Town Council

Town Council (3 seats open)

Town Council (3 seats open)

These towns have elections but none of them are contested:

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.