|
HILLARY WAS HERE
BRYAN HARRISON
2.21.07 It was supposed to be a tribute to Jim Clyburn. Jim who? What began as a modest affair by two mayors to honor South Carolina¹s only  majority whip
was upstaged by a candidate for President.Hillary Clinton, the junior Senator from NY-D, who aspires to higher office and draws huge crowds wherever she goes, didn¹t exactly crash the party but she did manage to wrangle herself an invitation. The result was a couple of thousand people storming a Charleston Union Hall with limited capacity and with some, even those who came to see Clyburn rather than Clinton, unable to get in, including some of the people who organized the event. The parking lot was full a good hour before the event was scheduled to begin. Many who crowded the corridors couldn¹t tell you who Clyburn is. ³Carny² types were selling not-very-cheap Hillary buttons. An overflow room was soon filled up and even a few chairs reserved for the disabled and elderly were grabbed up by the celebrity seekers. Clyburn got his tribute with remarks from Mayors Joseph P. Riley, Jr., of Charleston and Keith Summey of North Charleston, and praise by former Senator Fritz Hollings. These were the scheduled speakers. Clinton, who heard about the event, which was scheduled on the same day as her visits to Columbia and Florence, wanted to join in. The organizers could hardly say no to a United States Senator. The Clinton campaign staff saw a windfall in the making and, with only four days to go, quickly set in motion publicity which would ensure a large crowd and give the impression of a connection between Clinton and the congressman. Clyburn is the most influential black politician in the state. In a Democratic primary in South Carolina, the black vote is all important and a winner will have to have substantial support from the black community. So it is now that Clinton is seen to be cornering the black vote, although Clyburn isn¹t endorsing anyone in the primary, at least not now. The audience was largely black but an Obama button was spotted as well as some Edwards supporters. Clinton doesn¹t have the black vote wrapped up by any means. The fact the Clinton was able to turn someone else¹s show into her own media event is a lesson in how political experts play the press. Hillary¹s handlers took advantage of a lazy Charleston press corps. And they did it without breaking any rules. Their press release stated the truth that Senator Clinton was coming to pay tribute to Clyburn. Two of the three local television stations seized on the news that a presidential candidate was coming and made her the star of the show. The daily newspaper played it the same way. One channel, WCBD (Channel 2), emphasized that it was a Clyburn affair. On the 11 o¹clock news, following the event, only WCBD covered it that way, as it would have without the accompanying fanfare. but offering an exclusive interview with Clinton afterward. The others made much of Hillary and less of Jim. Clinton dutifully and graciously paid tribute to Clyburn who has been a force in South Carolina politics. In the interview with WCBD¹s Warren Pepper, she talked mostly about the strain of such a long campaign on both candidates and the public For those who came to pay tribute to Clyburn and blamed Clinton for possibly spoiling their fun, she may have lost a few votes. But the general public saw it differently, thanks to clever maneuvering of the local press. The result is gathering momentum for the Democrats front-runner with only a few noses out of joint. THE TOWN HALL CANDIDATE BY BRYAN HARRISON 2.13.07 John Edwards, the modern-day populist who spreads his optimism among the poor and the hard-working, returned to his native state last week  and
gave Charlestonians a dose of down-to-earth politics.With all of the early hoopla going to candidates Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, Edwards is running a steady campaign and he is stealing some of each one¹s thunder. Sen. Clinton advocated health care for all a dozen years ago and Sen. Obama has written a book entitled ³The Audacity of Hope.² But Edwards¹ health care plan is both audacious and and hopeful, comprehensive and possible. It will involve the government, employers and the people themselves. It will include mental illness, preventative care and chronic care. It will cause those on the extreme right to scream ³socialism² at its worst. Since President Bush¹s attempt to revise Medicare and subsequent plans to devastate Medicaid, there are several health care plans out there, but they lack specifics. Edwards¹ plan is thoroughly researched and thought out and, more importantly, workable. Indeed, he says it can be paid for partly by rolling back Bush¹s tax cuts for the very wealthy. Although health care affects everyone to some extent and the plan offers a good reason for support, Edwards is far from a one-issue candidate. While most of his early opponents are preparing to open their check books and bombard the public with sound bites and simple slogans, Edwards is going about the country staging town hall meetings. Standing in shirt sleeves, he has the common man¹s touch as he stays close to a standing-room-only audience in a small Charleston Union Hall auditorium. Almost everyone there, at one time or another, got close enough to touch. Although two minority persons are frontrunners in the Democratic Party, minority people in this crowd were holding up Edwards¹ signs and applauding at every turn. Not all of those present were Democrats and some Democrats favored others in the primary, but even they applauded, respectfully, and in some cases enthusiastically, throughout the meeting. In this instance Edwards was not in front of the audience, but surrounded by people with questions and those who were simply lending their ears. It¹s the closest thing to the old-fashioned whistle stop, the weapon successfully used by another common man, Harry Truman, who never thought a crowd was too small. He has the knack of getting volunteers and arousing interest in the young. When he went to the University of Michigan, he was told that he would be lucky to get 15 students to attend his rally. It drew 4,000. Some gave up their Spring break to go to New Orleans and help him with the dirty work of rebuilding. He told the group that the people of America couldn¹t wait for the election, that they needed to make a difference now. He drew applause when he said ³Americans want to be inspired.² And when he said ³It is time for Americans to be patriotic about something besides the war,² he drew a standing ovation from the whole house. One theme ran through the answers to questions ranging from ending poverty to ending the war in Iraq. He kept saying ³we¹re (America) better than this.² He said we must re-establish America¹s leadership in the world, its moral standing. ³Power alone does not make you a leader,² he said. When a questioner noted that ³people (of foreign countries) don¹t like us any more,² he said the first 100 days of the next President¹s term should be spent going around the world talking to the people, ³not just the leaders behind closed doors.² He recalled President John F. Kennedy¹s famous Berlin speech and claimed the America was the only nation which had the power to destabilize. At one point he bragged ³Americans don¹t talk diversity, we are diversity.² His world view is similar to his national view, in a word, the people. He touches on other issues, such as ending poverty, strengthening the middle class and leading the fight on global warming. He spoke of stimulating wage increases, repairing ³job lock² (because of health insurance), job loss in South Carolina, and he had to address the issue that everyone wants to hear about. ³We should tell Iraq that we¹re leaving.² He didn¹t offer a complex plan for withdrawal such as the myriad plans now being offered up and down Pennsylvania Avenue, rather he says we need to get out as soon as possible, meaning right away. One might be led to think that this is campaign rhetoric, saying just what the people want to hear. He took up a major portion of his time explaining what is and what isn¹t going on in Iraq. He makes sense and one senses most people believe, as he does, that there is no military solution to the predicament that this country has found itself in. (With the troops that man the surge, and with support troops, it will be double the 20,000 projected, and they ³will have to come from extending the tours of the troops destined to come home.² Iran doesn¹t want chaos in the region. ³They don¹t want thousands of refugees flooding across their borders.² Diplomacy must extend to Iran and Syria.) Questions from the audience prompted a lengthy discussion on poverty and homelessness. His ideas sound utopian, but again they are well thought out and convincing. Edwards is waging a grass roots campaign, a harder row to hoe than sitting back with handlers and appearing on television. The question is will it work? The debates may be on his side, one of them coming relatively soon in Orangeburg. Most experts say he will have to win in South Carolina or it¹s all over. And since campaigning is more grueling than sitting as a governor or senator, the closeness of the town hall meeting offered a glimpse of physical fitness. So far, there is no trace of fatigue or weariness. Indeed, he comes into the hall like a prize fighter ready to rumble. His critics say his baby face works against him as is the fact that he was part of the losing team in 2004. Two years have matured him both in physical appearance and political know-how. Can the ³up-close-and-personal² appeal reflect itself on television where the ultimately the battle must be fought? Although he is a candidate of issues, and a good politician makes the issues rather than reacting to them, there is something else he would have the voters consider. In answer to a forthright question, he said ³What I would be looking for in a candidate is who is a good, honest and decent human being.² After four years of disillusionment and plunging opinion polls in the present leadership, that could be a big issue in itself. A Party In Power How does a party stay in power? The Democratic Party had a hold on the South from the days of reconstruction until the 1960’s. It almost seems incredible that politicians in the most impoverished region of the nation could keep winning by preaching the status quo. The people, however, kept electing them until Southern Republicans, notably Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, played the race card better than their opponents. It is ironic that the party of Lincoln could promote inequality and win. Today the party stands for patriotism, family values and fiscal conservatism. They say they are tough on crime, take a hard line on immigration and a right to life. They are the party of God, the flag, business and good old-fashioned Americanism. In the South, Democrats have a hard time with these issues because the national party seems to represent the North Pole and it also tends to ignore the South. Yet Democratic candidates could turn the tables on the Republicans, if they only would. Candidates who win elections are those who pick the issues and force their opponents on the defensive. You can watch it happen during the upcoming elections. Democrats will be asked how they stand on the amendment to ban desecrating the flag. It¹s a phony issue. Before that question is asked, a smart candidate will ask why our flag, (which the Bush-Cheney people seemed to have captured, using it as a symbol for supporting the war on Iraq) is no longer respected in the rest of the world where it once stood as a symbol of hope, freedom and opportunity. A failed foreign policy has turned it into a sign of greed, weakness and exploitation. To much of the rest of the world, we are no longer the champions of the underdog, but the bullies on the playground. A Democrat will be expected to take a stand on gay marriage. The right wing has declared war on a definition. But, as one columnist asked, how are the Republicans “walking the walk” on family values when it comes to the real threat, not the talk, on marriage and the family? Surprisingly, the highest rate of divorce is found in The Bible Belt. For states highest in the divorce rate, South Carolina is fourth in the nation. Instead of worrying about what gay people do or don’t do, we should be worrying about the causes of divorce, that nasty word that takes the family out of family values. Divorce rates are highest where the pay is the lowest and paychecks are lowest in the South. To escape labor unions and the demands for higher wages, industry fled to the South where jobs were needed to compensate for the loss of farms. South Carolina’s unemployment rates are higher than the national average and things are getting worse. It doesn’t take much imagination to see what low wages, unemployment and sheer poverty can do to a marriage. It also spills over into the schools. Southern states don’t pay their teachers enough to compete. It is those states that pay a living wage (not a minimum wage), that have the best schools and consequently the most stable societies. (That hotbed of liberalism, Massachusetts, which leads the nation in fewer children left behind also has the lowest divorce rate.) Too, the specter of poverty is the shadow of crime. True fiscal conservatives must cringe at the current Republican White House and Congress when they look at the national deficit. The Republican Party has always been the party that balanced a budget and preached that we should run our government like we would run our household. But the party of business has become the party of big business. Small businessmen need not apply. Unfortunately, big business is taking away our identity as a city, town or neighborhood. It is also big business which, with its tax breaks and highly-paid lobbyists (more and more coming out of the government and even the halls of Congress), is methodically taking away our wetlands and forests, polluting our air and streams and warming our globe. It would take some courage, but the time is right, to see a Republican candidate give more than lip service to fiscal soundness, and push for the small businessman. Hopefully true Republicans can move away from the hate tactics of the extreme right wing, shake off a tyrannical religion and quit pandering to the masses with sound bites rather than substance. Republicans, especially in the South, should begin to engage in authentic dialogue. Strom Thurmond is gone, the Vietnam War is over and the religious right is not the sole representative of Christianity. Likewise, it is not enough for Democrats to rely on dissatisfaction with the political party now in power. It is time for their candidates to start talking about real issues instead of defending themselves against high-sounding platitudes and obscure smoke screens. PRETENDING PATRIOTS Mr. Sherman: The people should have as little to do as may be with the government as possible. Mr. Gerry: The people do not lack virtue but are the dupes of pretended patriots. From the notes of James Madison at the Constitutional Convention, 1787. 6.13.06 Today is primary election day in South Carolina. I live across the river from Charleston, that beautiful old city full of charm and beauty where the ancestral voices still speak to us. This city and state was once a hot bed of patriotism, in the forefront of the American Revolution and the forming of the United States government. But its present-day political voices, while claiming to be the echoes of that noble heritage, are more from the Neanderthal period than 18th century. Four years ago a little guy ran around this reddest of red states in a red pick-up truck claiming he got his values by working on a farm when he was a kid. Turns out the farm was his mommy’s plantation. Although he was born with a silver split-rail in his mouth, the voters, led by the nose by the Republican oligarchy, elected him governor anyway. Now we’ve got a guy who says he got his start “hammering nails.” These rich guys have to try to convince us they became successful by working like the common man, spinning off Horatio Alger stories as fast as they are peeling off bucks for TV ads. By the way, the nail hammering guy also tells us that he is a “businessman, not a politician.” Where have we heard that before? In South Carolina a candidate only has to say four things: ”I am a fiscal conservative. I believe in ‘family values.’ I will lower or eliminate your property taxes. I will work hard to improve education.” The only choice the voter has is which one not to believe. The voter’s belief seems to be based on how much money the candidate can spend on TV and which one has the closest ties to the power brokers. Those TV ads, like the power brokers, don’t change. A new candidate usually trots out his smiling wife and kids and makes sure you know he goes to church. The incumbents always run on their “record.” Take the pick-up truck governor, for example. Throughout the primary he has claimed he has found over 100,000 new jobs for South Carolina. There are about 2,000 recently laid-off textile workers who are wondering if he can find one for them. Our farm boy is working on the principle that the more preposterous the claim, the easier it is to believe. At one point, the family-value, hard working governor showed up at his own cabinet meeting wearing a Wal-Mart employee outfit saying he wanted to run the state like a Wal-Mart. And so he has: Cheap labor, laughable health care, shoddy products and building anew to clog traffic and running off small businesses. Everyone running is going to improve education. Some favor a system where the state will use tax money to send little white kids to private schools, while others, boasting that they themselves are products of the South Carolina public school system, always say they will improve the public schools. Of course, politicians have been saying that ever since South Carolina has had public schools yet the state’s public schools continue to rate at or near the bottom in the nation. In this congressional district, the incumbent Republican, one of the clearest GOP rubber stamps ever cut, has no opposition, saving gas on a rented pick-up truck. There are three Democrats running, but as I sit here trying to make up my mind which is the best, or the least offensive, I have only heard of one of them. That’s when he announced for office, saying he was a fiscal conservative. Yet at the national level the country is facing crisis after crisis. When I was a youngster one of the most popular educational devices was a jigsaw puzzle of a United States map where each piece was a state. I sometimes think the great dictator of the universe was working the puzzle and his dog ran off with the South Carolina piece. As election day approaches, most people, regardless of their politics, are thanking God for the mute buttons on their TV sets. My big question is why they are not mad as hell. Those good old boys who really did learn values working on a farm should be wondering what happened to the farms. Well, boys, they’ve been paved over to make room for them there Super Wal-Marts and second homes for transplanted Yankees. That¹s what happened to “the country.” (If you don¹t believe it, look at Country Music. Aunt Sally is turning over in her grave listening to the off-color lyrics to rock and roll beats and wondering why the awards are given out in sin-filled Las Vegas.) Those John Deere tractors have been replaced by gas guzzling SUVs. But the politicians who sat the knee of Strom Thurmond’s Harry Dent and G. H. W. Bush’s Lee Atwater keep telling you that they are for good old family values, which means they aren’t gay and, although Johnny can¹t read, he should be able to pray at school. But like “the country,” families aren’t what they used to be. Many of them in South Carolina are scattered to the four winds because the breadwinners can’t find jobs here. The old demagogues used to frighten off the white boys with the fear that Negroes would take their jobs. Now the jobs have gone to South America and China to satisfy big business with its GOP-sponsored ”free trade” policy, and of course to stock the Wal-Mart shelves with duty-free goods. These days Southern families depend on air travel and single moms are winning the bread. Tonight, when the returns come in, I will wait breathlessly to see if tweedle-dum beat tweedle-dee. Meanwhile, men like the Pinckneys, who attended that Constitutional Convention or Edward Rutledge, the youngest signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Charlestonian who fought in the Revolution and became a prisoner of war, are turning over in their graves. And while they turn, old Strom is smiling while he reaches out of the grave and pats those nail-hammering pick-up drivers on the head.
HUNTING GROUNDS ARE NOT HAPPY
I grew up surrounded by woods. Small game and birds, not to mention fish, abounded. I still wet a hook occasionally, but most of my hunting these days is done with a camera. Physical problems keep me from walking any real distance. I guess I could do some prissy hunting, like Dick Cheney, shooting bred-to-die birds, flushed by people you pay, but such an unsporting activity doesn’t appeal to me. I’m still a nature lover and enjoy watching wild life, especially water fowl, here in the Lowcountry where I live. But the water birds are leaving, not just in the Lowcountry, but everywhere in the United States. So are the rabbits, squirrels, opossums, deer and red-tailed hawks. The game that hunters once thinned out is being exterminated by automobiles, unheeded development and pollution. The fish have been condemned by rapidly growing cesspools of polluted and toxic waters. Thousands of acres of forest are disappearing, gone forever, the land supporting the trees bulldozed and paved. What everyone thought was protected forest, our national forests, is being sold by the present administration with a corporate loving Congress shouting amen. Urban sprawl, America’s ravenous appetite for more houses, malls and Super Wal-Marts, has replaced the happy hunting grounds. Recent figures from the real estate industry tell us that 40 per cent of the homes being built today are second homes, investments for the affluent. The forests are being cleared to build these unnecessary houses and provide paper for tons and tons of unwanted junk mail with which corporate America floods our mail boxes. Public access to beaches is limited by houses in which no one lives. The blame for much of this damage belongs to local sell-out politicians who use phrases like broadening the tax base, economic development and, of course, more jobs. I live near Isle of Palms, S.C. The oceanfront is a wall of large beach houses, mostly unoccupied. Before their construction, there was no need of the services that require more taxes, there was no economic development involved and hardly any jobs. Public access to the beach is severely limited. Commercial development goes right along with housing development and sometimes it’s the tail wagging the dog. All of this demands more species-eliminating road projects and more pavement. This phenomenon has been especially prevalent in the Southeast. It is hard to believe that what happened in Southern Florida happened without money changing hands between developers and politicians. So who is responsible? The biggest offenders are the politicians, starting at the top, which loosen environmental controls and sound conservation principles to pander to big business as well as small-time, two bit local politicians who allow the land to be depleted. And how do they do this? They use phony and polarizing issues to fool people. The Republicans con the hunters by telling them the other side will take away their guns. They get their votes by preaching phony patriotism and so-called "family values." Some hunters and fishermen are afraid to take a strong stand on conservation for fear of being branded "tree huggers" without thinking that trees support wildlife. The wine and cheese faction of the Democratic Party totally ignores the sportsmen. The Republicans who preach the message of fear when it comes to severely tight gun control are funded by the National Rifle Association that uses the second amendment argument to keep its membership high and raise money for its candidates. It's an organization that supports candidates who favor loose controls on pollution and who promote development, the real enemies of the sportsman and nature lovers. The NRA grades members of Congress on their conservative votes. The League of Conservation Voters also grades them on their votes concerning conservation. Most of the members of the Republican-controlled Congress received an "A" by the NRA and the same ones got very low marks from the LCV. A South Carolina Democrat ran for the U. S. Senate in 2002. He was a hunter and used to say that you didn’t need an AK47 to shoot rabbits. He lost to the Republican non-hunter supported by the NRA. People who pay dues to this anti-hunting group of phonies should just go ahead and donate it to the GOP. A good example of local government giving in to the commercial interests while fooling the people is something that's going on in the town where I live. There is a plan on the table to build a hospital beside one of the two scenic roads here. This will require eliminating some very old trees. This proposal prompted another hospital corporation to consider expanding in the town. The mayor, who controls the town council, says there is room enough for both. This is the same mayor who once interrupted my day with a recorded telephone message to tell me the good news that the main highway through the town was being widened. Even after its widening, there will still be more traffic than it can bear as a result of unbridled development. Shortly after the good news, the mayor and his council voted to place a super Wal-Mart on the highway (the Wal-Mart we already have is bigger than our neighboring city's air port). To be sure, there will be public hearings, but what chance do "tree huggers" have against such a noble project as a hospital when the Wal-Mart was a foregone conclusion the minute their lawyers appeared on the scene? Our town, by the way, is five miles away from a city that has one of the largest complexes of hospitals in the South. On a national level, the flippant disregard for conservation projects and controls in the last five and a half years is well known. The logging industry, the oil industry, the mining industry and the giant polluters have had a bonanza. Now, a failed immigration policy enters the picture and the best the present administration can come up with is a "guest worker" program, another name for cheap labor and still more corporate profits. Over-population is a threat that could render the final blow to any and all conservation efforts. The 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants, not known for strict birth control, will leave millions of heirs, all in need of housing and Wal-Marts. Recently, a New York Times editorial writer published a non-thinking, knee-jerk response to the immigration problem by saying when a mass demonstration of immigrants recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag in "Spanglish," it brought tears to the eye. I guess we someday will have to sacrifice hunting and individual fishing because one can¹t take a shotgun to the local mall and can’t eat poisoned fish. My tears are for the generations to come who will have to go to a zoo to see a squirrel. - Harrison
YOUNG PATRIOTS MAKE
A NATION
More information can found on the web at CWPT.
Recently, I received the following e-mail from a young friend: “I just found out that my friend Chris Fox is having to go back to Iraq tonight. He is going to have to be there for over a year. This is his second trip. In his first, a bomb was dropped next to his station and he lost all the hearing in one of his ears. He shouldn't have to go back, his hearing impairment can cost him his life if he isn’t careful. I ask that you take time out of your busy schedules and pray for him. He has to leave his mother and sister right before Christmas. This is not easy for them, and I have to say I took the news pretty hard too. I ask that on Christmas when you are with your families, that you pray for Chris. He will be fighting for us so we can be with those we love. I am so proud of him. He is a good man. I pray that this war will be over before too long and he can home to us who love him. Keep him in your hearts this season, for we are in his. All of us.” We keep hearing hopeful predictions that the U. S. will begin troop withdrawals next year. Meanwhile, how many soldiers like Chris Fox will have to return to battle, even, if our friend is to be believed, if they have been already dangerously damaged. The war, and the handling of the war, has become increasingly unpopular reflecting a drop in the President’s approval numbers. Rather than handling it differently he has gone to the public three times, with the same tired message, urging support for his war. He’s trying to get his numbers up at the expense of the troops he encourages us to support. The war has become a political football scored by a popularity poll. Indeed, it is clear now that the war has always been about politics as the reasons for invading Iraq have diminished. The handling of it from the beginning, with an ill equipped army and faulty intelligence, has brought about unnecessary casualties. Now not only the equipment is lacking, but the soldiers themselves are lacking, in this case, full hearing. History does repeat itself. The casualties of the Korean War were monstrous. The troops were woefully outnumbered and there was inadequate clothing for the severely cold Korean winters. Viet Nam should have taught us a lesson. We fought a war with no clear cut victory in sight and we kept fighting long after it was over. Richard M. Nixon’s slogan then was “Peace with honor.” The troops that fought that war came home to a less than honorable welcome. It’s a better slogan than we have now even though the situation is the same. One definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. The answer to relieving the current worn-out troops would have been to institute a draft. That would have been the practical and militarily feasible thing to do. But if this war is unpopular now, think of what it would be like if everyone’s sons and daughters had to go. What will Chris Fox come home to? He will find a country divided on almost every front, on every issue. He will find the people arguing over almost everything from the war he fought to what we are supposed to call Christmas. He will come home to a family who has endured anxiety and heartbreak. A government which boasts of national security while spying on its own people, one which violates the Bill of Rights which thousands of soldiers fought and died for. Hopefully, Chris will come home a better man even if he is wounded in body and mind. In that lies hope for a divided nation. If he and the others fighting this war can help us heal and in the future help us lead, maybe his service will not be in vain. If indeed he comes home at all. Noblesse Oblige Noblesse oblige:(noh-BLES oh-BLEEZH) From French, meaning “nobility obligates.” The belief that the wealthy and privileged are obliged to help those less fortunate. 11.21.05 Following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and the government’s feeble response to come to the aid of the displaced people, a great outpouring of human kindness by the people of America and an acute awareness of poverty-stricken people, President Bush walked out in an eerie New Orleans’ Jackson Square to promise that we have to treat this problem with “bold action.” Briefly, it looked as though the president might use his power and influence to practice noblesse oblige, the time-honored tradition of those possessing wealth and privilege to give to the poorest people of the country and especially to those who survived the disaster. After all, it was this president and his think-alike Congress who helped to make the very rich very much richer. At 2 a.m. one morning last week the Republican leadership answered with sure enough bold action. They cut billions from MedicAid, the program which provides essential medical care for the poor and also cut the food stamps program. This news came two days after FEMA announced that it will be kicking thousands of Katrina victims into the streets on two weeks’ notice, just in time for Christmas. The Congress also failed to tax the huge oil companies who used Katrina as a pretense to raise gasoline and heating oil prices and adjourned for the Thanksgiving holidays leaving on the floor their sure-to pass proposals to keep on cutting taxes of the very wealthy. When first used, the term noblesse oblige, literally meaning "nobility obligates," implied that people of higher station, in order to attain peer approval, were expected to help to those of lower station. It is not charity. It implies that it is imperative, virtually commanded by society that anyone who, possessing special largesses, is to make the best use of those gifts or that he or she is duty-bound to do his or her best. Noblesse oblige means more than its definition. It is a spirit, dating back to the age of chivalry. Although the concept was originally applied to those of noble birth and lofty station, in modern times it came to include corporations and even governments, such as United Nations efforts and the U.S. involvement in Somalia. But the wealthy of today, as reflected in their politics, haven’t caught the spirit. They are reverse Robin Hoods. When President Bush campaigned in 2000, he came up with the phrase ”compassionate conservatism.” Perhaps that was noblesse oblige said in another way. But the Republican Party which he represents has been shanghaied by conservatives whose idea of compassion is the same old ”trickle down economics.” In pre-Reagan times, Republicans always claimed that our government should run like the individual household-don’t spend what you don’t have, balance the budget and leave something for the kids. The grand old party of today is composed of get-rich quick hustlers who are perfectly willing to let future generations pick up the tab for their extravagance. Big business today has shown little regard for the less fortunate. It isn’t just Wal-Mart who pays coolie wages and lets the government pay for medical insurance in the form of, ironically, Medic-Aid. Looking for cheap labor, big business exploited the South. The South is a land of myths and the modern myth is that the South prospered because of imported industry. But no one watching the evacuation of Katrina and Rita which devastated the deep South could possibly believe that any more. These were poor people who needed all the help a compassionate government can give them, the kind of help that generous private citizens can not. The President¹s father, George, Sr., while campaigning, called for “a thousand points of light.” He meant that private enterprise could take up the slack in government’s entitlements and benefits. Although it was a clear call for noblesse oblige, there was no leader to make it happen. His mother, on viewing the plight of the hurricane victims in the Houston astrodome said "...so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this is working very well for them." No wonder the words of their son sound as hollow as the stark and artificially imposed setting of spooky Jackson Square where he said them with a straight face.
Sox Win Kids Lose
The so-called liberals on the court, in true liberal style, felt they were favoring a "progressive" decision and it only took one conservative to jump ship and win the day. This liberal found himself disagreeing with a New York Times editorial and siding with the likes of, heaven forbid, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and Sandra Day O¹Conner. Seven homeowners in New London, Connecticut lost their homes when justices ruled that the city may take their property through eminent domain to make way for a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer pharmaceutical company research center. An opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens held that New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue. Heretofore, public use has been confined to such things as highways and things that would benefit the public at large. The court has always ruled that governments can¹t take property away from one party to give to another party for commercial use, but that is what has happened here. There was more to the story behind the development. The city created the New London Development Corporation, a private entity under the control of the city, but unanswerable to the public, which designed the project and used all the tricks that developers use to acquire commercial projects from governments. Large developers use "economic opportunity" as a selling point very often, a vague promise that industry that will truly benefit the community and will arrive with baited breath. They almost always throw in something non-commercial to give themselves a public service image, in New London¹s case a Coast Guard museum. However, somebody is going to make money on the deal and it won¹t be the little guy, since the decision will also aversely affect small business owners as well as home owners. Justice O¹ Conner said in her dissenting opinion, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party... The beneficiaries are likely to be those... with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." More to the point, she said there is ³nothing to prevent the state from replacing Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall and any farm with a factory.² During arguments O¹Conner asked the developer¹s attorney if a small business could be replaced by a bigger business? He replied, "Yes, your honor, it would be appropriate to replace a lower-cost motel with a plush hotel.² Homeowners in and near Mount Pleasant have already seen how crass politics forced a large economic development on their adjoining neighborhoods and how all property owners in the town will suffer from increased water bills and more traffic congestion. Locally owned businesses are already rapidly disappearing from the face of America and being replaced by large chains with their big boxes. Let us suppose that some future Charleston City Council decided that it needed more tax revenue and more jobs. After this decision, nothing could stop it from seizing all the homes in the historical district and turning the area into an industrial park. Day¹s Inn could be replaced by a giant resort. Bay Street businesses would make way for a super Wal-Mart and a Costco with their low paying, no-benefit jobs. The Times editorial recognized that some politicians could be corrupted, but this decision encourages corruption. Some big developers have always looked for weak and hungry politicians in city, county and state governments. They should be jubilant now. Some of the victims of this new eminent domain had been living in their homes all of their lives. One held a second job for 21 years to buy his home. Another home was built when William McKinley was president. One of the great promises of America has been to own one¹s home. It was the dream of the pioneers who continued to carve a path westward, where land could be acquired and building materials could be found. They risked danger and isolation and fought the natives and each other to get there. Another American dream was to own one¹s own business. That takes courage and even more so today than in the early days of the country. Big development has already surrounded most cities and is eating up what was once countryside. Now those living in the inner cities, partially blighted, will not be spared the bulldozer and the wrecking ball. The decision flies in the face of what the framers of the constitution valued. Alexander Hamilton, in a speech to the Constitutional Convention, said "the security of Property," was one of the "great objects of Government." "That alone is a just government," wrote James Madison, "which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." Indeed, the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged not only their lives and sacred honor but their fortunes as well. The justices on the Court ignored the basic principles on which the early liberals (those who pledged their fortunes) stood and It only took one conservative on the Court to suddenly join them. It was hardly an heroic move, one that allows the big and the powerful to acquire more and more at the expense of the people. It was a great day for the flush and the plush. After that the Court went
about business as usual, making sure a reporter goes to jail
because a headline-hungry prosecutor wanted her to turn over her
notes for a story that was never published about a crime which was
never committed. I went back over those news stories that I had written for this newspaper, a coverage of Mount Pleasant politics, and I saw nothing to indicate I was one way or the other, except possibly an exposure of a group of Republicans who tried to make the non-partisan town elections into a partisan one. I also had written about prominent Republicans who condemned those responsible. Looking back on my career, I tried to always be fair. I was never particularly concerned in the ideology or the party of the people I was writing about. Once a series of articles I had written led an aggressive and minority Republican Party to oust an old Democratic machine which ran the town. As a political writer, when I smelled a rat, I tried to shine the light on the rat and bring him out of the darkness. Rats will use any party or any belief system as long as it helps them be rats. Once, when, as an active journalist in Washington, D.C., I was asked by a group of fellow reporters who I thought was the most honest, direct and forthright of all the politicians then active. I said Barry Goldwater. They all agreed, none of us having covered Harry Truman. Now that I write an editorial column, it’s probably time to let the cat out of the bag. I am a liberal. But there are liberals and there are liberals. This doesn’t mean that I embrace every liberal cause that pops up. I would subscribe to Franklin Roosevelt’s definition which was, paraphrased, we are liberals so that we can be conservative. I have made that statement to liberals and conservatives alike and I often get back a blank stare. This is because thinking along these lines has become too narrow and it also reflects what is popularly called the polarization of our country. I have often shocked my conservative friends about my beliefs on such things as the second amendment, when I think we ought to be allowed to have guns, and especially when I once said I would possibly favor training and arming school teachers. I also take stands on issues that would be popular with conservatives of another era. At least I could have conversations with those conservatives. I would have enjoyed a Goldwater press conference, comparing notes with George Will and listening to the old Southern Democrats who made statehouses and the halls of Congress ring with that superb oratory that put hair-brained ideas in their place. I would have thrilled to go out into the wilds with Theodore Roosevelt and I couldn’t imagine a greater honor and pleasure than to sit down for a talk with Thomas Jefferson. There are conservatives and there are conservatives. I attended a dinner during the 2004 election campaign and the subject of the bitterness and downright hate of the time came up. I asked a person about my age if he could imagine Adlai Stevenson and Dwight D. Eisenhower engaging in such a fray. He could not. By today’s standards, Eisenhower would be considered almost a leftist. He allowed and approved of a lot of progressive measures pushed through Congress by Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson. Recently, we saw a letter to the Post and Courier which offered these words by Eisenhower: “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that political party again in our political history. “There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas billionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” That tiny splinter group has captured the Republican Party and consequently the nation. A good example of how the party and its fiscal conservatives have changed is their approach to spending. All through our youth and early days we heard the favorite theme of fiscal Republicans which was to say we must run the country like we would our household, in other words stay out of outrageous debt and balance the budget. That idea went out the door with Ronald Reagan’s “trickle down” theory of economics and has now been given away to the very rich making the fast buck and the consequences be damned. I have always been amused at Republicans calling themselves “the party of Lincoln” and holding “Lincoln Day” fund-raising dinners. Lincoln was our most liberal President, and like Roosevelt. was liberal so that the country could accomplish the goals of true conservatism, that is the achievement of those values and truths of the founding fathers who gave us a Constitution that, while establishing a democratic nation, left room for change based on future needs. One such value was expressed by John F. Kennedy who said that God’s work on earth should truly be done by man. Today’s Republicans are more like those who tried to hold on to their plantations, and who have been taken over by those who believe God’s work is rewarding them economically and helping the poor get poorer. I saw a bumper sticker that said “God said it, I believe it and that settles it.” There is no conversation here. Today’s conservatives are not fiscally responsible, far from it. They are simply greedy. They hide their bad laws behind phony labels. The “no child left behind” act leaves poor and minority children lagging far behind. The Patriot Act would have made the original patriots turning over in their graves and have the rest of us patriots looking under our beds at night. The right wing has claimed the American flag as their own. Should a liberal such as I display the flag, the Bush-Cheney people would applaud and believe that I am one of them. I saluted the flag when in uniform, never thinking that someday I would be making a political statement. When the term “compassionate conservatism” was first bandied about, I asked a conservative friend what that meant. He, too, was baffled. If you want to know how compassionate today’s conservatism is, ask the not-so-filthy-rich elderly how much they pay for medicine or how they feel about privatizing social security. In the old days, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, could have intelligent discussions with twinkles in their eyes. I find the TV program, “Crossfire”, appalling. What could be intelligent discussion turns out to be rude argument. Today, more than ever, we need conversations like those found in the letters between Jefferson and John Adams after they both had served their terms. Raw conservatives hate unbiased journalism. The only time I ever felt Dan Rather was losing his objectivity was in his gushing support of President Bush in the days following the 9/11 tragedy. They still hate “Deep Throat” who led us to the truth, but they loved J. Edgar Hoover, a blackmailer who covered up the truth when convenient to his own dark purposes. They own newspapers who hire editors who thwart reporters who have been taught good journalism. They own TV stations, indeed a network, which panders to their political beliefs. They also do not like judges who do not rule in favor of their ideology or religious beliefs. They want judges who ignore the law in order to set ultra-conservative precedents. They would have a U.S. Supreme Court like the one which which gave us the Dred Scott decision, saying some people were property. If the laws should change, they should not go backward, but they should respect the spirit and intent of those who made this country and those who maintained it throughout our history. The right wingers would have it, and they are getting it, an authoritarian executive branch, a subservient legislative branch and a compliant judicial branch. Today we need conversation rather than conformity, a government with an ear to the people rather than one listening to the lobbyists, a lower class with a voice, a middle class sans smugness and an upper class with a sense of noblese oblige. Ours is a government of the people, for the people and by the people said Abraham Lincoln as he interpreted the work of the Founding Fathers. I think he demonstrated that he meant all of the people, not the privileged few. He also said this: …if we would supplant the opinions and the policies of the [Founding] Fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive and argument so clear that even that their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand.” Lincoln found that evidence and acted upon it. The Founding Fathers were men of their time. Our time is now and it is our mission to improve upon the creation with still keeping those verities and truths which lay therein.
Tonight I’m going to the ball game at “The Joe.” That’s Joseph P. Riley, Jr. Park, home of the Charleston RiverDogs. Those of you who are familiar with the “Dogs” know its time for hijinks and shenanigans, Charlie and Chelsea, giveaways and splash days, dog (literally) days and Thirsty Thursdays, Friday fireworks and fun games, Ken Carrington and Ken, the beer man. It’s opening night and the new young players will be making their introduction to Charleston’s fans. These players have come from Spring training in Tampa where they’ve been going through the drills in New York Yankee jerseys and caps. My love for Minor League Baseball began in 1946 when the Asheville (NC) Tourists became a team in the Class B Tri-State League. The players were literally “bush leaguers” because there was no fence in the outfield. The outfielders used to hide balls in the bushes and tried to beat the runner heading home. Now there’s a mile-high fence in right field, making it hard on left-handed sluggers. Later, I did player profiles for a weekly newspaper in Asheville and that’s basically what I still do with the RiverDogs. I used to cover politics for Mount Pleasant News & Comment. At the time I told people I wrote about minor league baseball and minor league politics. Since I don’t cover the games on a day to day basis, I prefer to sit with the fans instead of our colleagues in the press box. Those guys are really working. In the grandstand I become part of the crowd. That’s the appeal of the minor leagues. The players can actually recognize your voice, the umpire can hear your heckling, you can retrieve foul balls. Tuesday I went to media day, but left the work to the TV people and the deadline journalists. I introduced myself to the manager and some of the players and checked out the hot dogs. They are better this year than they were last season. Like most fans, I’m treated like a king at the ball park. Everybody from the general manager to the bat boy have always afforded me the utmost courtesy. After a couple of seasons, one also makes friends with the fans. There are those fans who will stay until the last man’s out, even it’s 2 a. m. and tied in the 17th inning. Then there are the casual fans who I see often but not always. Finally there are fans who come, bring their kids and enjoy the zaniness that goes on between innings. On the last day of the 2003 season, the RiverDogs only lacked a few paying customers to break an attendance record. There came a downpour and the radio broadcasters kept urging people to come on out, anyway. They did and broke the record. Rain doesn’t phase these fans. When it rains, the public address announcer keeps everybody going and the kids get to splash around in the swampy grass. The Major League teams I used to watch were the Senators, the Orioles, the Mets, the Yankees, and finally, the Padres and the modern-day Dodgers. When I was a youngster, Babe Ruth was the undisputed home run king and a lovable (to fans, at least) guy to boot. The Yankees and the Brooklyn Dodgers seemed always to end up playing each other in the World Series. Later, I saw the Big Red Machine stop any ball hit in the infield, Willie Mays make his famous basket catches, Tom Seaver and Nolan Ryan mow down batters and Carl Yamstremski hit balls out of the park. Has the game changed? You bet. We read where chewing tobacco has been outlawed in the minors. When I was a kid, a pitcher couldn’t take the mound without half ‘a plug of Apple or Brown Mule in his mouth. We also read where one fan just sold his World Series ticket stub for $463, the value being based on the only perfect game ever pitched in a World Series. The original price? $2.10, less than a hot dog and coke at The Joe. I stuck with the game when many people lost their engrossment during the players strikes, others when ticket prices got out of bounds. My feeling for the game hasn’t changed. I still love to watch the intellectual duel between pitcher and batter, the ballet of the double play, the daring of stealing home and the cat and mouse game between the battery and infield and base runner . Yet, I have a problem with those who run the game and those who cheat at it. It’s a disappointment to say the least. Yes, we’re talking about the steroids scandal. Say it ain’t so, Joe? Mark McGuire wouldn’t say it ain’t so. Barry Bonds, as usual, made an ass out of himself, blaming everyone else for his problems. Baseball owners and the players union have finally agreed on something. They want to give cheaters a slap on the wrist and leave the record books unblemished. Baseball put an asterik by Roger Maris’ name when he hit 61 home runs and wouldn’t allow Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame for gambling. Yet Jose Canseco, who admits to using steroids, can continue to brag about his statistics. The major league owners seem perfectly willing to pay millions to players who can make long singles count as home runs. It’s amazing that fans are not turned off by the scandal, but the New York Times reports that 2005 advance ticket sales have increased over six per cent from last year and new corporate sponsors are waiting in line to support the leagues. The plague has also reached the minor leagues. This year 38 minor leaguers have been caught using steroids in Spring training. During the season as I watch these new young Riverdogs, who aspire to wear the pinstripes and play in “The House that Ruth Built,” I will cheer their great moments, become saddened by their errors and mental lapses, take pride in their promotions to higher levels and feel like crying if they can’t make it even in Class A ball. Over the years, I’ve “adopted” slews of young players and, yep, some of them made it to the “bigs.” I want to think that these kids are pure and innocent, that the worst thing they do is play their rock and roll too loud. I can only hope if anyone hits a ball over that right-field fence in McCormick Field that he is doing so by ingesting only the food his mama fed him. |
History’s Light
Burning Out . . .
- BRYAN HARRISON
Although Charlestonians take pride in their rich and colorful history and
surely let visitors know about it, many natives and tourists alike, who
flock to the city’s northward beaches, do not know that one of the most
important battles of the American Revolution was fought at Breach Inlet
between Sullivan’s Island and the Isle of Palms.
So the next time you have cocktails before dinner at the Boathouse Restaurant, you might raise your glass to those who may have fought and died on the very spot where you’re standing.
In June of 1776, the British, in an effort to make headway in the southern colonies, put their fleet into Charleston Harbor. To occupy it they first had to get by the guns on Sullivan’s Island. The amateur Patriot gunners almost wrecked the fleet, and a crude fort made out of palmetto logs absorbed the enemy gunfire.
Trying to dislodge the gunners, a small force landed on the Isle of Palms but were turned back by South Carolina shooters, again using the palmetto logs as a defense.
What made the battle historically significant was that the South was free from invasion for nearly three years and was also the colonists’ first decisive military victory. Six days later the founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence.
Since no great armies were involved and practical needs had to be fulfilled, only a lone historical marker preserves the spot.
Other battlefields on American soil did have large troop movements and meaningful moments and the question of how far we are willing to go to preserve them for future generations is up in the air.
Developers of houses, condos, mega stores and shopping malls have gobbled up acres and acres of land that was the site where once fought Lee and Grant, Stonewall and Sherman. Do we care? Or would we rather let Disney build another “land” or “world” which it tried to do on what Lincoln called “hallowed ground?”
We’ll briefly describe what it took to save a portion of one battlefield. It’s not only the fields of open land that are in jeopardy, so take heed, Charlestonians, for the developers have an eye on cities of history as well. We’ll also describe the plight of one of America’s most historical towns.
The people in Mount Pleasant and their neighbors who in recent times opposed development of the Marino tract learned first hand how hard it is to stop a determined and monied developer who can throw favors around to the high and the low. They can be stopped but if they have gotten to the politicians in power and the general public shrugs it off, opponents are fighting a losing battle.
Three years ago, the property known as Mullins farm in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, was all set for development where in 1864 The Battle of Chancelorsville raged over this terrain. It was the victory of Confederate forces there that sent General Lee northward to Gettysburg and it was the battle in which Stonewall Jackson was killed. It is one of the most historically significant sites outside National Park boundaries.
An announcement was made by a development group that it planned to construct a 2,350 house “town center” complete with 2.4 million square feet of commercial space featuring a huge shopping mall.
The developers used the usual tactics in these situations. They promised economic benefits generating $11 million for the county and 7,000 new jobs. They also promised land for a school and a fire and police station. Of course they didn’t emphasize that the county would have to bear the cost of building and maintaining the perks nor did they dwell on the kind of jobs shopping malls create, paying Wal-Mart wages.
At Chancellorsville, seven national and local non-profit groups, headed by The Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT), formed a coalition and mounted a drive to save history from concrete and vinyl.
They made it a national issue and support and funds came from aroused Americans. The nearby newspaper was flooded with letters to the editor. The coalition also hired an outside polling firm to conduct a public opinion survey which found that 66 per cent of registered voters opposed the development and 90 per cent said that the local government had a responsibility to keep historical sites preserved.
One would think that the survey would be enough to turn around elected officials. It wasn’t. The county Planning Commission, after a public hearing designed to favor the developers, ignored the poll and voted to approve the plan.
The public outcry was loud and furious but even then it was not enough. Even after two vacancies on the Board of Supervisors were filled by preservation sympathizers, more work was needed. A candlelight vigil in the snow followed by neighborhood canvassing, the addition of seven new organizations to the coalition and the negative backlash from a telemarketing campaign by the developers was what it took to finally save the battlefield.
What will it take to save a city’s treasured shrines? America’s oldest city, St. Augustine, boasts of 1,200 historic places and some colonial homes that would match those in Charleston. It is America’s oldest city, founded by Spanish conquerors in 1565, 20 years before the Roanoke (Lost) Colony and 42 years before Jamestown.
The 14,000 people of the city love and appreciate their history and the structures that have survived the centuries, but they fear that it could become like so many cities in Florida, replete with fast food chains, shopping malls and all the tacky stuff that comes with this kind of development.
The city is already engulfed with development and as more and more retirees are flocking to this laid-back town. Part of the problem is that 38 per cent of St. Augustine is untaxable. Some of it can become taxable by people purchasing an historic home and living in it. They can also remodel, renovate or even tear it down.
Money for preservation must come from a relatively meager property tax base of 6,590 parcels of land, more than a city this size can handle. The state of Florida had been pouring dollars into this city to keep its historic structures as a lure for tourism. The state, seemingly indifferent to preservation, is now claiming the budget can’t stand it.
The result: One historic structure is being demolished every month. Already, historic streets are beyond preservation. One street, where Spanish dons and ladies once strolled, has been turned into one of trinket and T-shirt shops, craft stores, a pub, a gallery and a boutique that sells glass figurines.
St. Augustine does have an ordinance that the city can order new homeowners to wait one year before touching anything. However, the city cannot afford to buy the homes, some valued at more than $2 million. Although some years back a local preservation fund was started and a pitch was made for donors, few came forth.
Not only standing structures are disappearing, but rare Spanish and Indian artifacts are lost. Recently, a Hilton Hotel constructed an underground parking lot covering up what archeologists believe contained countless treasures.
It is estimated that it would take $10 million to start a good preservation campaign and $80 to $100 million to put St. Augustine on a grand scale.
It is hard to imagine conquistadors and pirates munching on Big Macs or men in tri-cornered hats fifing and drumming over K-Mart’s parking lot.
Unfortunately, you don’t have to go to Florida or Virginia to see preservation threatened. Developers are looking through their scopes at every piece of vacant land available and small, but historic towns, like Summerville, are not that far away and are dealing with the same kind of people who are turning Mount Pleasant, once a sleepy little fishing village, into another Myrtle Beach..
The CWPT, which led the charge at Chancerlorsville, now lists Morris Island as one of the five most threatened Civil War sites in the nation. It was here the famed all-black 54th Massachusetts regiment (of the movie “Glory” fame), that camped at the end of Long Point Road, later charged Fort Wagner, but was turned back by the Confederates defending Charleston.
A determined group of locals saved the Morris Island lighthouse, but the light of history may very well burn out on the hallowed ground below it.
_______________________________________________
SUPPORT OUR TROUPS
- BRYAN HARRISON
During the first Gulf War, an amphibious landing was planned by the U. S.
Marine Corps, a military ploy designed to pull Iraqi troops away from the
main point of attack.
My son was on a Navy landing craft that would have ferried the combat troops ashore. When I watched the bombing of Baghdad, I was fearful and that was mixed with a feeling of helplessness. The answer to what can I do to help didn’t come.
Then the yellow ribbons began to appear. Inspired by the song, “Tie a Yellow Ribbon Around The Old Oak Tree,” a 1973 hit by Tony Orlando and Dawn, the ribbon was a symbol of hope that our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, sweethearts and neighbors would come back home alive.
The song was about a man who had just been released from prison and who by mail had asked his sweetheart, if she still wanted to see him, to tie a yellow ribbon around an old oak tree. The song goes on to say that everyone on the bus back home cheered for him when he saw a hundred yellow ribbons on the tree.
Living in Santa Barbara, California, at the time, the ribbons emerged like flowers in the spring. This gesture, and a letter to my son almost every day I thought he was in danger, was the only way I could do anything about it.
I put a ribbon on my apartment door and another one on the outside door to the place I worked. They didn’t stay up very long. The “peace or I’ll kill you” crowd tore them down as fast as I could put them up.
Finally I went to a cloth store and the saleslady helped me tie a gigantic yellow ribbon and I paid an agile youngster to tie it to the top of a large fig tree outside the apartment building.
The peace zealots had more malice in their hearts than all the missiles George Herbert Walker Bush had in his arsenal. It was a political statement made at the expense of the men and women in service and especially those of us who wanted them back. The animal behaviorist and Nobel Prize winner Konrad Lorenz discovered that the dove was so vicious that it would peck its young to death.
Folklorists and archivists have tried to link the yellow ribbon symbol to earlier years but all we have is a possible legend. There is a story about a Union veteran who had done a similar thing after being released from Andersonville prison after the Civil War. The only connection the folk purists could find was the possibility that the yellow ribbon was worn by lovers of Union soldiers fighting politically incorrect Indians based on a 1949 John Wayne movie, a pretty weak link. The yellow ribbon is a modern symbol.
At the beginning of the present Gulf War we saw three yellow ribbons appear as we drove along Matthis Ferry Road in Mount Pleasant. The whole idea was soon replaced by commercial yellow ribbon stickers stuck on the backside of automobiles.
Only it isn’t the same.
First, the cloth ribbons had to be tied or attached to something. That requires some effort. The plastic magnetized decals can be bought cheaply and slapped on in a second.
Too, the symbol now carries a message, “Support Our Troops.” The message gives another meaning to the symbol, a symbol of which everyone except the extreme fanatics could be proud.
I am sure this decal is displayed with the same feeling of helplessness in those who, like us in the Gulf War and others in all the previous wars experienced and with them we have no quarrel.
The troops, however, deserve better than a slap in the rear.
Too many of these stickers are accompanied by other stickers proclaiming a hollow patriotism. These cars are adorned with “God Bless America” and Bush-Cheney bumper stickers.
I spotted one with the yellow sticker, three red, white and blue stickers, an American flag and a Confederate flag. This person is trying to tell us who he is, projecting an image which doesn’t render help or hope to the families of those in the service.
This new outburst of lavish love of God and country is to suggest we should all approve of a questionable war and the admistration that got us into it. They are much like the peaceniks of the other war spouting a political statement rather than expressing genuine care for the young men and women who are fighting for their lives.
I was in Asheville, N. C. when the recent invasion of Iraq was launched. Those who were against the war occupied a prominent place on the town square to display their opposition. As a reporter, I have always remained neutral on issues like this until I can develop a personal conviction. I stood for awhile with the war opponents after I asked that the sign calling people in the armed services “murderers” be removed. Some people opposed going to war after Pearl Harbor when our entire civilization was at stake.
We also stood for awhile with the war’s supporters across the street. Their fanaticism was avid, men in scrambled egg ball caps and Marine Corps insignias on their shirts and tattoos, frenzied women yelling at motorists. I have always wondered how a dictator could stir up a nation of peoples to invade other countries for dubious motives. These people gave me a clue.
After it was discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the motive shifted to making Iraq a bastion of democracy, I also wonder how many of these new patriots sat before their TV sets breathlessly awaiting the results in that country’s first election—after all that was the war’s purpose the administration finally decided on.
During World War II, every man, woman and child was involved in the war effort and so it was in the American Civil War. My mother, a nurse, was a Red Cross volunteer and, when we were engulfed in the blackouts, she would go to the top of the Battery Park Hotel in Asheville and practice spotting German planes. As a child I memorized the enemy aircraft silhouettes. Remember the scenes in “Gone With the Wind” where the aristocratic Southern women volunteered as nurses after the battle of Atlanta?
What will happen when the yellow ribbons are no longer necessary? All but 1,518 (at this writing) will come home if this figure is believed.
After World War II, the returning veterans were given a welcome deserving of heroes, complete with ticker tape parades. The government also enacted a GI bill to train, educate and build houses.
It was not always so.
Those who fought in the Revolutionary War were left to their own devices and the mercy of others. Many of these men returned homeless, blinded, maimed and crippled. Some of them peopled and created nightmarish “skid rows” in our cities. In New York City, the notoriety of the Bowery began. It was not until1815 that, following public demand, the country finally offered pensions.
Veterans of the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Indian Wars and the Spanish-American War also received benefits. The most common type of benefit was “mustering out” pay. Congress also passed several land grant acts during the 1850s to encourage the settling of the frontier. Veterans received more than 47 million acres of land as a result of these acts.
After the Civil War, Union troops paraded down Pennsylvania Avenue to the applause of President Andrew Johnson and the politicians who had already begun to wreak havoc in the South.
It was quite a while before the veterans received any help in the form of pensions and the Southern states had to beg, cajole and compromise before achieving a pension for Confederate widows. The Southerners who fought walked back home to face destruction and desolation.
Following World War I during which which the whole nation sang the song, ”When Johnny Comes Marching Home,” Johnny marched right into the mire of government indifference and economic prejudice.
Government policy and economic greed left disabled veterans without a medical system to meet their needs, leaving them sleeping in hospital doorways, on the concrete under cardboard boxes and sitting on street corners with tin cups and signs that read: “Help Me. I’m A Disabled Veteran.”
The Korean vets came home slowly. It was the first time since 1812 that Americans had fought a war with no concrete victory. The enthusiasm for the heroics was hardly exuberant, but the government did give them generous benefits.
Many of us remember the scornful and abusive treatment of Viet Nam veterans. No parades greeted them. One of them recently told me that after the war, he actually lied about his war activity, claiming to be a draft dodger so he could “fit in.”
My son’s home town, population about six hundred, gave the returning veterans of the first Gulf War a parade. Being in the Navy, he came home later. They gave him one all his own. Yet some of the disabled veterans of that conflict, claiming what is known as “Gulf War Syndrome,” are still angered at those in high places who laughed and denied the problem.
In the current war, lacking a sufficient standing military force, reservists and National Guard soldiers have borne the brunt of the war, going “into the breach once more,” then more again.
Firefighters, paramedics, policemen and other employees vital to a community have left a gap. The boy next door came home for a while not to march in a parade but to await orders to return. One reservist is asking not to return because the bank is foreclosing his home.
His comrades in arms will come home passed over in promotion, jobless, in debt and to a wife who has had to work and leave the children in someone else’s care.
The monetary cost of the war and the tax cuts have created a monstrous deficit. Ironically, the very men who are fighting the war will end up paying for it.
The present administration sent its troops into war shamefully unequipped to fight it.
Those who are really supporting the troops are those who have sent servicemen items which, although necessary for combat, the Defense Department failed to provide.
Retired Air Force Colonel, and now president of the Veteran’s Institute for Security and Democracy, Richard L. Klass recently said in a letter to a major newspaper that “veterans must fight for the needed equipment for our troops...”
The same administration that has asked so much from this generation’s fighting men and women now wants to cut back on veterans' medical care, and veterans are clamoring for the Congress to stop the cutback instead of cutting taxes. To help them stop this insulting legislation is more supportive than all the red, white and blue stickers on all the imported cars and gas guzzling SUVs in America.
Another question is: What are these troops fighting for? Klass says he knows “of no veteran who risked his life for a tax cut for the wealthy but plenty who fought for a compassionate country that takes care of its less well-off, children and the elderly.”
In some, not all, of our past wars, servicemen were supposed to have been “fighting for our rights.” That clarion call can still be heard by those who support an administration which, in the name of homeland security, has trampled all over the first, fourth, sixth and eighth amendments of our Bill of Rights.
To go back to the subject of supporting our troops, one can search the web for ways to really aid the men and women in service. There are organizations which provide everything from phone calls home to “comfort quilts” for the mothers at home.
If nothing else, you can always tie a real yellow ribbon around an old oak or even a fig tree.
Anatomy of
a News Story
- Bryan Harrison
If you haven’t already
read “Long Point Road - Hurricane Misery,”
linked on the Mt Pleasant News' front page, you might prefer to read
that article first.
This is the story of the story. It is also a classic look into how your government hides what it is doing.
I dealt with federal, county and town governments and three private agencies.
I made 14 phone calls to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), listened to 47 recorded messages, and pushed 119 buttons on the phone. I talked to 8 people. One refused to talk. At first I used the 800 number to save money for this company. I ended up calling Atlanta and talked to someone in Orlando.
Six people returned calls and six people could not answer the question of why Pinckney’s claim had been denied. I tried to find the person who made the final decision to no avail, and I tried to find the person, Mike Guerrero, who inspected the damage. No one had ever heard of him. One person refused to answer any questions.
When I finally told someone my plight and that I would print what I called the agency’s run-around, a public information officer (PIO) called me after hours and gave me incorrect information, saying that relief was not available for damage to individuals from Hurricane Gaston. She said either Governor Sanford did not ask for relief or that President Bush had turned it down.
I might have gotten through to someone in the governor’s office, a PIO no doubt, but I might have had trouble getting through to The White House. I took a short cut and on the first call to Congressman Henry Brown’s office, Sharon Axson was willing to help.
She found out that indeed individuals were qualified for relief as a result of Gaston. Pinckney had appealed the claim denial and had waited months to hear from them. After talking with Axson, Pinckney was informed that afternoon that FEMA was sending out another inspector.
I can only imagine what Pinckney and other FEMA applicants went through. Subsequently, I have learned that the congressman’s office has had difficulty trying to find out information on the status of Pinckney’s claim.
It isn’t that the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, with FEMA, the left hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.
Since Pinckney’s home lies in the County of Charleston, I wondered why the county government had not done anything about the eyesore on an historic and heavily-traveled road.
I had the copy of a letter to Pinckney from James H. Morris, in the county’s Grants Administration. I had one simple question. After telling us that our previous information was incorrect, he said he would not answer any more questions. I offered to read his letter to find out why the previous information was incorrect. He said he was a county employee and that because of county policy could not answer any questions from the press and referred me to a PIO
When I told him I had to print his refusal to answer questions, he said he didn’t care what I wrote and wouldn’t read it anyway.
A recording told me two days in a row that the county public information office wasn’t answering its phone.
Roland Windam, the county administrator, gave another number to get the answer. When asked if the county had a policy that county employees could not give direct answers to the press, he said, “It (the policy) does not exist.”
Another employee also cited this policy but after telling him what Windam said, he finally answered the simple question.
There are notable exceptions of course. I've already mentioned Windam, Axcson and Cost. Locally, the Mount Pleasant Planning Department, headed by Joel Ford, has always been very cooperative and accessible.
I called two county councilmen, Dr. Charles Wallace, who represents the district where the damage occurred, and Leon Stavrinakis, the council chairman. They have yet to return the call.
To the county government I made 13 phone calls, received four recorded messages, and talked to five people. Two answered questions, one refused, two did not call back at all and two called back after deadline.
Ms. Sutton couldn’t remember if the agency which provided care for her daughter was government or private, which was all I wanted to know, but she gave me a number to call.
One would think that this question would have no problems. It would only take the receptionist to identify the kind of agency it was.
After I introduced myself to Community Health Care, whoever answered the phone started to give me another number. I interrupted her to again ask what the agency was, she hung up and refused to answer subsequent phone calls.
The agency was funded by the state. In Columbia, I asked the PIO, Brian Cost, a bigger question.
He called back promptly and had the answer ready. I’m not sure, but I think it was the first time in my career a PIO officer was ready with an answer.
It took six days to put the information together.
Before the telephone companies made all of our lives more complex, taking minutes, hours and days from our lives, before we had recorded messages or caller ID, before the Freedom of Information Act, bureaucrats still ran and hid. The modern telephone has made it easier for government employees to delay, avoid, pass the buck and wait for the deadline to pass.
Of course, a reporter has to identify himself, but tell government workers you’re a newsman and they freeze. Once, before a Freedom of Information Act with teeth was passed, it took court orders to access public records. Sometimes it still does.
There are notable exceptions of course. I've already mentioned Axcson and Cost. Locally, the Mount Pleasant Planning Department, headed by Joel Ford, has always been very cooperative and accessible.
Seldom do PIO’s have the answer to anything. Most PIOs have to go back to the very person the reporter talked to in the first place, then check with his bosses and finally come up with the company line.
Reporters on the police beat once went straight to the officers and detectives. Had Bob Woodward gone through a PIO, we may never have heard about Watergate, never known about dishonesty in the top level of government.
Ari Fleischer, Bush’s first press secretary, said in interviews last week that the Bush administration was indeed restrictive on information, that legitimate reporters were tough and treated Republicans and Democrats alike. He also agreed that the Fourth Estate was the last stop on the checks and balances provided by the U. S. Constitution.
What the Bush administration has done is shameful. They’ve paid so-called print journalists (prostitutes with desktops), tax dollars to write favorably about the administration. They’ve allowed some very questionable bloggers into the White House Press Corps.
The Fox News Channel, primarily Brit Hume, another journalistic prostitute, is currently claiming that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who created Social Security, favored privatization schemes of the sort that President Bush is pushing—a flat-out lie with no source to back it up.
Closer to home, your local politicians are also very skillful in manipulating the press. In my two years of reporting in Mount Pleasant, Mayor Harry “Gets It Done” Hallman, constantly refused to answer questions. The news interviews he does grant are to those who will buy the official line—that’s like Larry King interviewing Mother Teresa.
The story about the damaged home on Long Point Road was not altogether about Thomas Pinckney or his sister, even the child with cerebral palsy.
It is a story about government indifference.
Good reporters can survive the manipulation, the subterfuge and the cowardice. It’s never personal. They rise above it and have to look at it as a game like poker or chess, or perhaps a sport such as boxing or football.
But to the citizen, the taxpayer, the voter, it is no sport.
Unfortunately, the
game playing will continue until the public at large knows what it is
getting and who it is getting it from.
bryanews@comcast.net.
Down by the Riverside
-
BRYAN HARRISON
Feb 24, 05
Newspapering is different from the way it was when I
started my professional career 46 years ago. Young reporters had their
stories handed back to them so marked up they could hardly read what they
just wrote.
We typed our stories on pulp paper and if the story ran over ran over one page, we took paste from a paste pot and pasted the pages together.
We were full of the crusading spirit. John F. Kennedy was president. He was young and we were young and we and all the young Turks of the Fourth Estate were going to change the world.
It was a man’s world then. City Editors with their sleeves rolled up barked across the news rooms and the older reporters with their loosened ties were cynical and didn’t trust the big shots.
Women were just beginning to show up in newsrooms. The ones who had already made it were as tough as the men and were respected by them. Helen Thomas was never awed by anyone, especially if he was President of the United States.
The women who I later came to work with were hard working, honorable and thorough. They were good at their jobs.
None of us seemed interested in the private lives of public figures, i.e. personal scandals. We knew about shenanigans but we ignored them. We were after hard news. We knew about philanderers and alcoholics but we didn’t think it affected our readers’ lives. A public figure had to do something truly outrageous before it became newsworthy.
Most city newspapers including small dailies, took the news and good writing seriously. They expected their reporters to find out what was going on behind the scenes as well as on the surface and write about it. The advertising departments were always downstairs.
Most cities had two newspapers (some more) and the competition was fierce. The afternoon dailies began to fold when the TV news could always beat them to the punch. People bought papers for classified ads and they wanted them first thing in the morning. The price of paper also went up as we began to deplete our own forests and had to import newsprint.
It is my opinion that most Americans are not getting all the news from the small dailies, that is the news they need to know to be the citizens they expect themselves to be. There are some very good newspapers left in this country but most small dailies have become Chamber of Commerce newsletters.
My profession has always been one of integrity and truth. We are still churning out reporters who want to get down in the trenches and dig, but in most of the country we are plagued by cowardly publishers and go-along editors. Politicians and others play them like a fiddle.
Drop a good reporter in any town in America and he will uncover things that someone is trying to hide. Many politicians and money interests like to work in the dark.
In some towns, a reporter doesn’t have to smell the rat; the rat will jump up and bite him. The reason most city newspapers don’t lift the rug to find who swept under them is that they don’t have to. They have no competition. Local TV news has always been content to report only the obvious and talk about the depthless.
Too, weekly newspapers have lost their bite. In the old days weekly owners sold the ads, wrote the news and tried to make ends meet as they rolled out a small circulation on old flat bed hot metal presses. Then chains began to buy them up and so many hometown papers have lost their “homeness.” Those editors and publishers had zeal for the folks they knew by their first names but chain owners could care less. They don’t sit in the church pew next to their subscribers or attend their weddings and funerals.
Worse still, some weeklies are owned by the prevailing neighboring daily newspapers. Your hometown weekly prints what your neighboring city paper wants it to say. It’s competition overkill leaving small towns with no voice of their own.
I have been a reporter, news photographer, editor and publisher of newspapers. Most of my career, with dailies and weeklies, I spent covering politics, although I held down the police beat and state and federal court and covered some of the more important trials of my time. I wrote extensively about conservation and environmental issues, and a lot about racial issues as the country went through the painful throes of change. I belonged to the American Newspaper Guild, drank at the National Press Club and picketed for equal pay for women journalists.
I have grown weary of politics. The characters change, but the script remains the same. Yet, I will be commenting about politics but I will be writing about other things. I like to write about “real” people and the “real” things they do. I hate phonies. I hate those who try to manipulate the press. I intensely dislike people who don’t say what they mean or mean what they say.
Despite this criticism of my chosen profession, I still love newspapers. As a young boy I began carrying them from house to house. On some of those days, I used to go the press room of the daily paper in my home town and watch the web roll of the presses as men in ink-stained caps were busy and intense. The roaring sound of those machines thrilled me and still does.
I will be offering my views on what I think is good and bad about my country, my state, my region, the South, the land I love.
A lot of my material will come from east of the Cooper River where I live and some will come from Charleston, the city I love. If anyone knows something of interest west of the Ashley, or anywhere else in the area, e-mail me - bryanews@comcast.net.
I hope to arouse your community consciousness. I would like to interest you, perhaps amuse you, provoke you and even make you angry at what’s going on around you. I would like to make you think.
I’m looking forward to this. I’ll be offering only my own my opinions. I hope you become a fan. If you disagree or even become angry at me, I hope you will still keep reading “Down By The Riverside.”
NO CURRENT EDITORIAL
OP-ED -
Jack Bass
Charleston 7.9.04
Some question
But Mr. Kerry made the right choice. The view that the South has become an entrenched Republican stronghold is a myth. Despite substantial Democratic electoral losses in the region in 2002, Democrats have made net gains here since 1998. In the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, the number of Democratic governors and senators has risen (from three to four and from seven to nine, respectively).
In fact, the choice of Mr.
Edwards means that
Despite a slight Republican tilt in state politics, genuine two-party competition has emerged in the South, with political independents holding the balance of power. A South Carolina survey last fall, for example, found that 31 percent of registered voters identified themselves as independents; many of them are suburban dwellers who can identify with Mr. Edwards's upward mobility. In addition, Mr. Edwards's "two Americas" speech resonates both with blacks and working-class whites, especially the tens of thousands in the Carolinas who have lost jobs as textile and apparel plants have moved overseas.
Even in South Carolina, with a Republican governor and Legislature, having Mr. Edwards on the ticket puts the state in play. For starters, there is pride in having a native son on a major-party ticket for the first time in more than 150 years. What's more, Mr. Edwards won South Carolina's Democratic presidential primary, earning 45 percent of the vote in a record turnout. The presence of Mr. Edwards, who ran especially well among independents, also means that Inez Tenenbaum, the state education superintendent who is trying to keep Ernest F. Hollings's Senate seat for the Democrats, can comfortably associate herself with the national ticket, rather than run away from it.
The ticket is similarly strong in North Carolina, where Mr. Edwards lives. There, too, his candidacy is bound to have wider effects, helping Erskine Bowles, the former White House chief of staff, who is hoping to keep Mr. Edwards's seat for the Democrats.
The Kerry-Edwards combination could put Louisiana in play, as well. Mr. Kerry's religious background will help him in the heavily Catholic southern half of the state, while Mr. Edwards will appeal to voters in the north, where the culture reflects more of the deep South. Mr. Edwards should also complement the ticket in northern Florida, where his economic message and Southern identity will resonate with the many transplants from adjoining Alabama and Georgia. (Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, should do well with Florida's retirees and Jewish voters.)
In Tennessee, with the presence of a popular Democratic governor and a twinge of remorse about the loss of Tennessean Al Gore in 2000, the selection of Mr. Edwards means that Mr. Bush can't count on the state. Same for Virginia, which elected a Democrat, Mark Warner, governor in 2001, and Arkansas, which has five Democrats among its six members of Congress.
There are limits to all this, of course. Mr. Edwards is unlikely to make much difference in Georgia, where Democrats are in disarray and Republicans are almost certain to win the seat being vacated by Senator Zell Miller, whose party allegiance has switched in all but name only. Alabama, Mississippi and Texas all remain beyond Democratic reach, too.
This is not to say that Mr. Bush might not face further complications down the road. A few days ago, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, criticized the Bush campaign, saying he was "appalled" at its effort to use church rosters to reach voters. "The bottom line is, when a church does it, it's nonpartisan and appropriate," he said. "When a campaign does it, it's partisan and inappropriate."
If Mr. Edwards can play on these growing tensions and begin to assure Southern voters that the Democrats can be trusted, he just might turn a few red states to blue.
Jack Bass, professor of humanities and social sciences at the College of Charleston, is the co-author of "The Transformation of Southern Politics."
- up to $2.25 million toward a county library,
- up to $750,00 toward a fire/EMS station,
- $500,000 for non-profit community service organizations
- additional green space to be used a public parks
- extension of water and sewer lines to East Cooper Airport at no cost to the Aviation Authority,
- and some on and off site improvements required by traffic studies.
Carolina Park - Hearings & Issues
Editorial by: William Van
Nort
10.1.03 Last week Mayor Harry Hallman’s editorial on Carolina Park indicated he was against its development because it is too large and this is not the right time. I couldn’t agree with him more. I believe that what Carolina Park wants to build on its 1600 acre tract will be devastating to the infrastructure of the Town of Mount Pleasant and the East Cooper area.
Does everyone know the location of Mr. Marino’s property? It’s in the County and is surrounded by the Town on three sides. It lies just west of the new Wando High School which is in the town and east of Park West, and of course is in the Town of Mount Pleasant.. And it’s in the Town’s planning area.
Mr. Marino presented his plan to the Town of Mount Pleasant early this year and after receiving negative comments from the town’s staff, Planning Commission and the citizens at a public hearing, he has gone to the County and proposed to build his project in the county and under a development agreement, much like Seaside farms. The Town will have no say-so on the development for 20 years.
By building in the county according to the Towns Planning Depts. Marino will save approximately 14.2 million dollars in impact and building fees as well as approximately $1,690,000 annually in ad valorem taxes for the Town of Mount Pleasant.
It is extremely important to reiterate that a project of this magnitude will create a substantial increase in traffic and that major road improvements should be required. If this project were developed in the Town of Mount Pleasant, over $8,000,000 would be required to be paid in transportation impact fees. These funds could be used to make road improvements that have been identified as necessary with the development of this project as it is currently proposed. Development of this project in Charleston County would mean that no funds would be in place to make the following road improvements.
· Widen
US 17
· Construct
signal and multiple turn lanes.
· Construct
signal and turn lane at Park West Boulevard and
connector Roads.
· Widen
Park West Boulevard to four lanes.
· Install
right – turn lanes from Dunes West Boulevard onto SC 41
Yes, I along with Larry Carr and Thomasena Stokes Marshall requested a special Council meeting to give the residents of Austin Point the opportunity to present their annexation petition. Town ordinance requires three Council members or the Mayor can call special council meetings. The residents of Austin Point are trying to annex into the Town of Mount Pleasant and bring the commercial portion of Mr. Marino’s property with them. They are using the so-called 75% method, which is one of the legal methods approved by the State of South Carolina for annexation. If there are successful, the Town will have at least more control over the commercial (discount shopping center) portion of this project.
On Tuesday, September 23, County Council approved the development agreement. A public hearing will be held at the County office building located at 4045 Bridge View Drive, North Charleston on October 7th at 6:00 PM.
If you are concerned about this uncontrolled growth, please attend, let County Council know how you feel.
William Van Nort,
Council Member, Town of Mount Pleasant
Editorial by:
Thomasena Stokes Marshall
10.1.03
Since 1998, the Mount Pleasant Town Council has been working hard to
develop and implement a Comprehensive Plan and supporting programs
designed to manage growth responsibly and protect the quality of life for
its residents and business community.
Our Land Use Zoning Plan was established to determine what kind of
development would be best for the town and where specific types of
development such as economic development and light industry would be
located.
A three-percent (3%) Building Allocation Permit Program was developed and
implemented to slow down the Town’s accelerated growth patterns and allow
our infrastructure improvement efforts to catch up.
The Transportation Plan was developed to ensure that developers paid for
the improvements of roads to address the impact that their development
would have on the Town’s infrastructure.
Our Capital Improvement Plan was established to address the demands placed
on the Town by our increasing population.
Policies and Ordinances have been established and implemented to provide
for thoughtful evaluation of project impacts and to address the issues of
historic tree protection, the size and composition of our buffers,
construction of sidewalks and exterior lighting plans.
We have even succeeded in having certain developers enter into an
agreement with the Town which sets aside funds in an escrow account to
help address the inadequate school facilities in the East Cooper
community.
After several previous unsuccessful attempts to gain approval to develop
his property in the town, this past winter Mr. Marino again brought his
development plan back to the Town’s Planning Department, requesting 30
some odd exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan. At a public hearing last
spring, more than 400 Mt. Pleasant residents spoke out in opposition to
the number of variances requested by Mr. Marino. It was clear that they
were not opposed to annexing Carolina Park into the Town and making it
subject to the growth management efforts described above, but rather were
simply requesting that it meet the requirements of our thoughtfully
constructed comprehensive plan.
With all due respect, what our Mayor failed to acknowledge in his recent
editorial in the Post and Courier, is that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan,
Land Use Plan, Building Permit Allocation Program, Buffer Ordinance,
Sidewalk and Street Lighting Ordinance were all established and designed
to manage and control the town’s rate of growth so that we will not
overburden the infrastructure.
We seek to annex this property so that the development will meet the
criteria we have established for responsible planned growth. The reason
for annexing the undeveloped Marino Tract or any other large piece of
property is to ensure that the elected officials and the citizens of Mount
Pleasant have a voice in determining what is in our best interest.
The Comprehensive Plan, The Land Use Zoning Plan, The Transportation Plan
and the Building Permit Allocation Plan, and Impact Assessment Review
allow the Town of Mt. Pleasant to manage how and when growth will
progress. Furthermore, by annexing Carolina Park, the Town will collect
the impact fees and property taxes that will help offset the negative
impact and demand that will be placed upon our fire, police, recreation,
public service and schools
If Carolina Park is developed in the County, Mt. Pleasant residents will
bear the entire burden of the 30,000 additional cars on our inadequate
infrastructure without receiving the needed revenue required to service
the growth.
Since Mr. Marino could not force his development project (with 30 some odd
exceptions) on the elected officials and the residents of Mt. Pleasant, he
has chosen to circumvent the Town of Mt. Pleasant's managed growth
policies by going to Charleston County.
Mt. Pleasant’s Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Zoning Plan, Transportation
Plan, Buffer Ordinance, lighting ordinance and density requirements,
impact assessment review process all provide Town Council with the tools
necessary to manage growth and development throughout our planning area.
Charleston County Council does not have these tools, and they have
specifically refused to work with the Town of Mt. Pleasant on this
problem.
As Chairman of the Annexation Committee, I believe we must annex this
property to insure the quality of life that all East Cooper residents have
come to expect. Some people would lead our residents to believe that
annexation is equal to development. Let's not be misled to equating
annexation to development. Just because undeveloped property is annexed
into the Town, does not mean that it will be developed. Rather, annexation
does ensure that the annexed property will be subject to being developed
according to our Comprehensive Plan and other ordinances and policies that
have been implemented to manage and control growth in the Town of Mount
Pleasant.
After several meeting with members of Charleston County Council, Mayor
Hallman and Councilman Joe Bustos, wrote to Chairman Tim Scott and County
Council expressing our concerns and requesting that a public hearing be
held East of the Cooper. County Council made no effort to coordinate our
respective comprehensive plan reviews or address Mt. Pleasant's concerns
about Carolina Park and its noncompliance with Mt. Pleasant's
Comprehensive Plan. In fact, Chairman Scott appears to have put Mr.
Marino’s request on the fast track and specifically refused to work with
Mount Pleasant officials.
It appears that Charleston County Council as well as some of Mt.
Pleasant's elected officials couldn't care less about the negative impact
the Marino Carolina Park will have on the residents of Mt. Pleasant and
the entire East Cooper community. The county's apparent change of heart
with regard to this cooperative growth management effort by ignoring
attempts to coordinate our comprehensive plan reviews and signaling a
clear willingness to allow development of the CDM Tract at this time
demonstrated to us that our annexation moratorium would no longer be
effective. Our move to return to our normal annexation policy is an effort
to allow annexation of undeveloped property within our planning area and
thereby provide us greater control over the timing, standards, land uses,
and mitigation associated with the development of that property. It is my
opinion that the dynamics of Mount Pleasant's decision making seriously
changed when county council chose to abandon the cooperative development
management strategies that previously existed between our two bodies.
County Council has gone ahead and voted unanimously on the first reading
of The Carolina Park Development Agreement without even holding a public
hearing. There is a public hearing scheduled for October 7th at 6:00 PM.
It is crucial that East Cooper residents make the trip to County Council’s
North Charleston hearing to let them know how we feel.
Thomasena Stokes Marshall,
Member of Council, Mount Pleasant, SC
Shem Creek's Future:
9.23.03
Bronwyn S. Santos
I am writing this letter in an effort to document opposition to the plans
Richard Coen has for the development of Shem Creek. First and foremost, I
feel that the livelihood and preservation of our commercial fishing boats
will be in jeopardy if Mr. Coen’s plans are carried through. From what I
have heard these plans include a 30 slip marina on the other side of
Vickery’s and possibly a yacht club with dry dock storage and another boat
landing where the restaurant Slightly Up the Creek sits now. Both of these
plans will turn Shem Creek into just another playground for recreational
boaters. Is this what we want?? I understand Mr. Coen’s vision for wanting
to make Shem Creek more attractive and accessible to an ever-growing Mt.
Pleasant population. I also see greed taking precedence over a creek whose
history and purpose have been for our commercial fisherman.
The future of commercial fishing is on the decline. In the next 20 or 30 years there may not be a market for our fishermen to sell their product to, in part because of all the imported, farm-raised shrimp that most restaurants buy and serve. Another possibility is that there may not be enough product left in the ocean to sustain the number of boats now in Shem Creek. The thing is, the families whose incomes depend on fishing should not be forced out of this creek by anything that makes someone else’s hobbies more important than the livelihood of others. Who knows where Shem Creek will be in 20 or 30 years. Maybe Mr. Coen’s plans are inevitable, but for now, the right thing for us to do is to protect our creek and the families whose livelihood depends on it.
Mr. Coen has drawn attention to the fact that the docks where the commercial boats are moored are in bad disrepair and he would like to see them in better condition for all the fishermen who use them. I believe that his intentions to beautify the commercial fishing docks are not in the interest of our fishermen. His intentions are directly related to his development plans all along the creek. Of course these dirty docks don’t fit in with yacht clubs and charter fishing boats. These docks belong to working class fishermen, who don’t need or want someone to come in and “clean up” their dock. Mr. Coen may see this part of Shem Creek as a toilet bowl (as he quoted in The Charleston Daily News), but that’s just because this part of Shem Creek doesn’t fit into his development vision.
All the great things about Shem Creek could be better united and planned for in a way that doesn’t disrupt or take away from the livelihood of our fishermen. One idea would be to provide a section of dock space to the public. This dock space could be a place for the public to view some of the boats close-up. There could even be some attractive, educational panels displayed to show how these boats work (i.e. differences between shrimp trawling and long-lining, the process of bringing seafood from the ocean to our tables, etc.) This would definitely give people some insight and perspective to the creek and the boats that make it such a great place to experience. A yacht club and marina filled with recreational boats and expensive charter fishing boats may bring lots of money, but they will never bring the charm and awe that commercial fishing boats do.
One last point that I’d like to address is the assumption that there is so much room in Shem Creek for all the recreational boats that Mr. Coen wants to bring to our creek. Even though Shem Creek used to have a multiple of the fishing boats it has today, there is a huge difference between commercial fishing boats maneuvering around each other and these same boats maneuvering around 20-50 more recreational boats. It is crowded in the creek, and I’ve seen plenty of near misses between fishing boats trying to dock or turn around with pleasure boats trying to get dock space in front of a few restaurants. Working boats do not work well around lots of pleasure boats. It’s people doing two opposite things- one is just trying to make a living, and the others are just out for some fun. There certainly isn’t anything wrong with that, but if we let Mr. Coen increase the number of recreational boaters in this creek then we are asking for trouble.
It’s a matter of deciding which is
more important- the livelihood of our commercial fishermen or the money
that Richard Coen’s plans will bring to this creek. Can’t we just do the
right thing for now? Can’t we save and protect what little heritage and
tradition we have left in this creek, at least for a little while? I urge
each person involved with reviewing and issuing permits to seriously
consider the implications that Mr. Coen’s plan will have on Shem Creek.
Don’t let this one man control the future of Shem Creek.
Sincerely,
Bronwyn S. Santos tbronwyn@hotmail.com
CAROLINA PARK
ISSUES
[ SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 ]
Dear Editor,
Recently in Mount Pleasant there has been much back and forth over the
Carolina Park proposal currently in the county planning process and why
the town changed its' annexation stance. I have received more than a few
calls asking exactly what is happening. Ms Stokes-Marshall, Mr. Carr and
Mr. Van Nort working with the residents of Alston Point have submitted
several annexation petitions using the "adverse annexation method' or "75%
method" as some call it to forcibly annex all or a portion of the Carolina
Park area into the Town of Mount Pleasant. Their reasoning is that
development under the Mount Pleasant comprehensive plan will be better. It
should be noted at this point that the Carolina Park plan was in the
town's planning department when it was demanded by some residents and
nonresidents that the town quit talking with the developers. This
essentially did happen when the annexation moratorium was unanimously put
in place by the town council. Everyone felt the comprehensive plan needed
to be reviewed, it is currently under review, and that we needed
additional time to continue building roads and improving the quality of
services being provided to the town at its present size. Now, after two
special town council meetings requested by the same three council members
the annexation moratorium has been dropped and the forcible annexation of
the Carolina Park area is being considered. I personally do not feel this
is in the best interests of the town for the following reasons: First,
this "adverse" or "forced" annexation will probably result in a number of
lawsuits. We need only look at the Charleston/James Island annexation
legal battles to see what is coming. Now that the door is open for
annexations, we face the possibility of seeing this town grow by nearly
2,200 acres of nearby property. This considers landowners who have
expressed an interest in annexing and the 1,700 acre Carolina Park area.
Tract builders with access to large areas of raw land will come applying
for permits to build large numbers of homes. This will be to the detriment
of small local builders and individuals wanting to build homes who will
have to compete for permits that are steadily decreasing in number. Once
property is annexed, the town must immediately provide police, fire,
public services and recreational services to the area. This means the town
must thin the services currently provided to cover the newly annexed areas
or new sources of revenue must be obtained to hire new personnel and buy
equipment. There is no doubt that whether it is through a reduction in
services or new fees or taxes, newly annexed properties must receive
services. In short the entire town will feel the impact of annexation of
this scale. Some will say impact fees will pay for these services.
Carolina Park, according to the development plan may not start for two
years. While that means permits triggering impact fees may not start,
there will be preparation of the site ongoing with plenty of equipment and
materials on site which the developer, if in the town, has every right to
have protected by the police. Property taxes will probably not be received
for a year. The same will apply for fire protection and other basic
services. The occupied residences that come in under this large annexation
will also place an enormous demand on services simply because it is on the
far reaches of the town not to mention the revenue that must be paid to
the Awendaw Fire District to offset their loss of revenue. (If the town
annexes property resulting in a loss of property taxes to the fire
district the town must pay the county until the fire district's tax base
grows to replace the taxes lost through annexation) The entire town's fire
rating depends in large part to quick response times. Responding to areas
so far from our northern most fire station will extend the times we have
worked so hard to shorten by building new stations and buying new
equipment. This could eventually affect everyone's hazard insurance due to
average fire response times being too long. My opinion is that we should
continue to work on the town as it is and have the best services possible.
Should we be concerned about the Carolina Park development? Yes, but we
should not dilute our services, make the citizens of the town pay for
annexation or face lengthy litigation. We simply can not annex all the way
to Awendaw to say we want to control development. We can't afford it and
there will always be another development. I say lets hold the boundaries,
work on annexing pockets of county property within the town and continue
to ensure our services are second to none.
Joe Bustos
Council Member
Town of Mount Pleasant
TO: Editor, MTP
News & Comment
From: Larry Carr, MTP Member of Council
At the 9/7
special council meeting, Mayor Hallman proposed a new philosophy for
growth management. "The town is big enough and we don't need to annex any
more property until the infrastructure is in place to support it." In my
opinion, such an approach has major flaws.
1) It assumes that annexation equals development.
2) It gives the county the advantage of not having to worry about the
town and its residents as it merrily goes along approving development
projects.
3) It tends to focus narrowly on roads to the exclusion of schools,
recreation, the environment and other needs that must be addressed.
4) It ignores the fact that the town has a land use map for our planning
area that includes property not currently in the town.
5) It ignores the fact that property will still be developed in the
county placing even greater demands on our infrastructure without the town
receiving the benefit of impact fees,
6) It allows property to be developed in the county not in compliance
with the town's Comprehensive Plan and land use designations.
7) There are parcels of significant size on the outskirts of our
incorporated area but within our planning area which, if developed in the
county not compliant with Mount Pleasant's Comprehensive Plan, may have
significant adverse impact on our community and our quality of life.
I would propose the following annexation policy that is fairly simple and
specific.
1) We aggressively pursue annexation of undeveloped land in
unincorporated areas of our planning area.
2) We only pursue annexation of parcels already developed in the county
that are consistent with our comprehensive plan and land use map.
3) We be prepared to use all annexation techniques provided for in the
South Carolina Code, including the judicious use of the 75% method, which
can involve the annexation of property against an owner's wishes
(sometimes referred to as 'adverse annexation').
4) We annex 'in-fill' properties (sometimes referred to as 'donut holes')
as circumstances permit.
I think the benefits of this approach include;
1) Having new development in our planning area take place in compliance
with the town's comprehensive plan, land use map, zoning regulations and
other growth management strategies (impact assessment review, permit
allocation, etc). The county comprehensive plan, land use map and zoning
regulations differ in some significant ways from the town's. For instance,
the county does not currently employ a permit allocation program as a
growth management tool.
2) Having the town receive impact fees from new development and thereby
pursue our goal of 'growth paying for growth.' The county does not assess
impact fees for new development.
3) Having new development take place on a timetable consistent with the
town's capital improvement and infrastructure enhancement/transportation
plans. The county does not have an infrastructure or transportation plan
for east of the Cooper.
4) Having the impact on schools and other public facilities carefully
considered during the approval phase. Large projects routinely take months
to pass through the town's review process, usually with plenty of input
from citizens at public hearings. The county process is much less
rigorous.
5) Controlling our own destiny rather than being dependent on the county
planning process or the Mount Pleasant Waterworks to defend our 'vision'
for us. While the Waterworks has adopted a policy to support Mount
Pleasant's Comprehensive Plan when considering service to unincorporated
areas, the county has made no such commitment.
Let's look at these competing philosophies in the context of the current
situation with the Carolina Park (Marino) Development Proposal and the
Alston Point annexation petition. Everyone should be aware that Mr. Marino
has withdrawn the Carolina Park development proposal that was reviewed
earlier this year by the Mount Pleasant Planning Commission and instead
submitted it to the county for approval in the form of a 20 year
development agreement. As was discussed in great detail this spring, Mr.
Marino's proposal fails to comply with Mount Pleasant's comprehensive plan
in a number of significant ways, particularly the inclusion of a large,
'big box' shopping area and the use of residential densities greater than
what the town would allow. Contrary to what some have claimed, Mr.
Marino's proposal was not rejected by the town before being withdrawn.
While he received an unfavorable recommendation from the Planning
Commission, town council, before acting on his proposal, put in place a
policy of deferring requests for annexation until after our ongoing
comprehensive plan review is complete (scheduled for some time around the
first of the year). While Mr. Marino was quoted in some media outlets as
hoping that the town's comprehensive plan would be modified to accommodate
his request, it's become clear during the town's review process that this
is very unlikely. Hence, he's now shopping for a more favorable reception
from the county.
Enter the concerned residents of Alston Point (a subdivision of homes
developed in a rural setting adjacent to the CDM property). These folks
and many other citizens in the surrounding area were very clear during the
review of the Carolina Park proposal when it was before the Mount Pleasant
Planning Commission - they did not oppose development of the property in
the town, but strongly objected to the proposal's non-compliance with the
Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan.
Recognizing the benefits of annexing themselves into the town (better
police, fire, recreation and sanitation services) and learning that the
county was now considering the CDM proposal on the fast track, a number of
Alston Point residents submitted an annexation petition to the town that
included not only their own property but also the CDM property using the
75% 'adverse annexation' technique referred to above and as provided for
by SC Code section 5-3-150(1).
What is now before our town council is the question of acting favorably on
this petition that would bring the Marino property into the town and
therefore make it subject to the benefits described above or follow the
Mayor's policy and let CDM develop in the county.
Under the Mayor's policy with Carolina Park developing in the county, the
town would ultimately suffer all the adverse impacts on our traffic,
schools, environment, public facilities and businesses in the existing
commercial areas of town without receiving any additional resources to
address them. By accepting the Alston Point petition and annexing the
undeveloped CDM properties, we can end the game of the developer pitting
the town versus the county and have Mount Pleasant control the review
process, the land uses, the zoning, the densities and the timing under
which the project would develop. This is perhaps the most important
decision your elected officials will make for the foreseeable future.
My position is that annexing and developing the CDM property in the town
compliant with the Mount Pleasant Comprehensive Plan and on a timeline
consistent with the town's plans and programs will best serve the
interests of Mount Pleasant residents.
I also believe that this example supports my annexation policy proposal as
the best approach for the annexation component of Mount Pleasant's growth
management strategy.
Larry Carr
Member, Mount Pleasant Town Council
RE:
Mr. Bustos' Letter
From Ted Power:
Mr. Bustos, IF and when Marino ends up being developed in the county, I
want our residents (and voters) to remember that you were responsible for
the all the maneuvering, which led to this property being developed in
Charleston County.
What you fail to comprehend or choose to ignore --- from several people who have attempted to educate you --- is that all the reasons you cite as to why MP is not ready for this development, by annexing this property through the use of the legal 75% rule, will in fact ultimately impact this town in the very ways you claim to want to avoid. However, the impacts will be much more severe than if the property had been developed in the town, under our terms and timetable.
As Mr. Vince Adams pointed out last week in the Moultrie News, this public stated rationale of yours and the mayor’s to find a way to protect this community, from Charleston's county's give-a-darn attitude, flies in the face of any logic.
I have said for several years now that the major threat to our town’s future “livability” as a community was “how” the remaining “developable” land would be developed, East of the Cooper. By your actions, Mr. Bustos, you are the one who has been treacherous and irresponsible to your constituents and the Town of Mt. Pleasant. IF Marino is developed in the county, under looser building codes, higher densities than currently allowed, residential construction when we have a permit allocation program in place, no requirements imposed by the county for additional impact infrastructure, etc., etc., ... this will sadly be your legacy as a 4-year term council member. Regretfully, however, the town will continue to suffer the consequences of your actions/inactions, after you are long gone.
I fully expect you to react to this letter, perhaps on Channel 4 or local radio. Although I am now a private citizen, you showed your viciousness and contempt for those who disagree with you, by publicly criticizing me at a council meeting over a newspaper letter to the editor two months ago. Treacherous, irresponsible were the terms you used to describe my letter? Back then; I also said that Mr. Scott didn’t give a darn about East Cooper or Mt. Pleasant. What’s happened, Mr. Bustos?
Ted Power Private Citizen - Concerned about his community
New
Election Dates Would Not Increase Voter Turnout
Analysis: Bryan Harrison
When Mount Pleasant Councilman Paul Gawrych
suggested a plan to increase voter turnout by changing the municipal
election to November of an odd year, he was quickly joined by Mayor Harry
M. Hallman and Vice Mayor Kruger Smith.
The mayor said he was for any plan that would increase voter turnout and then cited figures showing how some council members were put in office with less than 10 per cent of those registered to vote.
Smith, a long-time promoter of the odd year change, said that no matter how you did it, changing the date would hold over the terms of council for 14 months.
The mayor appointed a special committee composed of Gawrych, Smith and Councilman William Van Nort and asked them to report back in 60 days. When the committee finally met after 90 days, Gawrych presented a letter by the Municipal Association of South Carolina (MASC) which has pushed for all municipalities to hold their elections in odd years. The association reported that 47 other municipalities held their elections at that time.
Van Nort wanted data to indicate that such a change would actually increase voter turnout. None was forthcoming.
While the plan reached Town Council in the course of a week, the public outcry over councilmen wanting to extend their terms by 14 months so alarmed the backers of the measure that they sent it back to committee which finally quashed it.
During the almost 4-months that backers of the plan had to produce statistics, there was no evidence that any effort was made to find out just how changing the election date would increase voter turnout.
As soon as it was certain that it would reach the full council in the form of an ordinance, Van Nort and Councilman Larry Carr went to Columbia in search of data that would indicate one way or the other if holding an election in November of an odd year would affect voter turnout.
First, they secured a list of the 47 municipalities from MASC.
In the state capitol, the state elections commission turned over returns of all elections in South Carolina. From the 47 municipalities, they then eliminated all towns with registered voters of 1,000 or less since the voting habits of small, rural communities could hardly reflect the patterns of a rapidly growing, partly transient community of 58,000.
That left 25 communities who vote in November of odd years ranging in population size from 1,250 to 56,002. The data included the number of registered voters, the last turnout, and the last two turnouts prior to that.
The average percentage of actual votes cast of registered voters calculates to 21.4 per cent. In the last three Mount Pleasant elections the voter turnout has been 26.4 per cent, 31 per cent and 26.4 per cent.
This clearly indicates that changing to November of an odd year would have little or no effect on voter turnout.
Seven of the communities had switched their election dates to the November odd year in the past five years. None of them asked to hold over their terms for 14 months. Others have been holding their elections at that time for many years.
It was a laborious task for the two councilmen but they accomplished it in less than 48 hours. Had the promoters of the plan done this, they would have discovered for themselves that their rationale for changing the date had no basis.
The mayor’s contention that many on our council serve by consent of less than 10 per cent of the voters is inaccurate and, being an accomplished and experienced politician, he should know that.
Ever since the voters of the 13 original states went to the polls and long before political scientists sat in their ivory towers, politicians have been tracking voting patterns. And ever since, people have been required to register to vote, politicians have known the difference between registered voters and possible potential voters.
The elections officials only take names off the registration list if a person hasn’t voted in ten years. During that time, people die and move away. National studies claim that the average American moves every three years.
Back when Old Mount Pleasant was simply Mount Pleasant, the community was stable. Today, people are moving in and out of the town faster than anyone could keep up with. The people moving in are registered somewhere else, the people moving out are still on Mount Pleasant’s registration list.
A local PAC recently sent out first class mail to the town’s registered voters. Before they did, they eliminated 3,000 addresses which they knew had a high resident turnover. Even so, the post office returned 4,000 more where postal officials knew that addressees no longer lived at those addresses. This doesn’t count the wrong addresses where new occupants didn’t bother to return to sender.
It would be anybody’s guess as to how many possible potential voters there are in Mount Pleasant. (Good precinct workers could provide some close figures.) It could be that the voter turnout reflected over 50 per cent or higher participation.
Although people may expect to vote in November, one could hardly say that voters were unaware of the last September election. Newspapers carried it and thousands of signs littered the yards, streets and highways of the town. The candidates and their helpers knocked on thousands of doors.
In the final analysis, it’s up to the candidates to get the people to vote. If Mount Pleasant voters need an issue, the three incumbents, who pushed hard to change the election date giving themselves 14 more months in office and the two councilmen who sat on the fence during the debate, certainly gave them one.
Election change
Letter to Editor
The Charleston Area League of Women Voters is uneasy regarding the current proposal to change Mount Pleasant's municipal election date to coincide with the November general election.
The League fully supports the objective of increasing voter turnout by moving the election to a date when, historically, more citizens cast votes. Indeed, part of our organization's mission is to build citizen participation in the democratic process.
At the same time, an unfortunate perception has arisen that the election change proposal is motivated by the desire of Mount Pleasant elected officials to extend their own terms. In order to avoid any claim of unfair advantage to existing officials, we urge that any election date change be phased in so that the current mayor and Town Council members receive no personal benefit.
We support Town Council's decision to hold a public meeting in advance of a vote by Town Council in order to present arguments for and against an election date change and to solicit the citizen input that is so critical.
The League of Women Voters of the Charleston Area agrees fully with the importance of increasing voter turnout for Mount Pleasant's municipal elections. However, in the interest of openness, fairness and consensus building, we believe that decisions on election change should follow a process that involves the informed and active participation of citizens, and avoid any suggestion of gain by public officials.
BARBARA ZIA
1885 Omni Blvd., Mount Pleasant
Editorial
Election
Change Proposal Fails to Meet It’s Own Goals
The Special Election Date Review Committee failed its mission.
It did not review all of the alternatives possible to change the
election date. It reviewed only one.
Councilman Paul Gawrych first suggested the plan to change the
date to November in an odd year presumably to increase voter turnout
in the town elections. However, the plan also included an extension
of the present council’s terms by 14 months. He had the backing of
the mayor.
When the three-person committee finally met, the only action they
could account for was a meeting with the County Elections Commission
which gave them no concrete evidence that changing the date would
indeed increase the number of voters.
Yet Gawrych, who was appointed chair of the committee, and Kruger
Smith, pressed on with Gawrych’s initial proposal. There was no
discussion of any other alternatives, nor were there the next day
when Mayor Harry M. Hallman chaired a permanent committee composed
of the same three people.
Instead, Hallman gave his reasons for wanting the change. He
said he couldn’t find any good reason not to change and the majority
of those he talked with favored the change. In addition he said that
a high voter turnout would not favor the incumbents. The committee
voted and passed the plan and then allowed the public to speak. A
spokesman for the elections commission said it made no difference to
them when the election was held.
There is a good argument for not changing the date at all. But
many of the people who oppose the Gawrych plan say they do not
object to a change. What they object to is extending the terms for
over a year.
One of the options that were open to the committee would be to
change the election date to coincide with the presidential elections
where voters would also select a governor, a U.S. Senator and the
entire U.S. House of Representatives plus the state house and much
of the state senate, the county commissioners and the school board.
This would ensure the largest turnout. Also, it would only extend
the terms a matter of weeks rather than 14 months. If the goal were
really to get the biggest turnout, then this would have been the
obvious change to reach it.
To say that the ballot would be overcrowded is a technicality
which could be overcome and indeed may be overcome for them by the
time the next election rolls around.
Another alternative would have been to change the date to the
November of even year to coincide with one senator, the entire
national and state houses and some of the state senate. These
elections draw the next best crowd.
The elections commission told
News & Comment
that the committee never even inquired about this option all.
By not choosing these alternatives, the mayor and the members of
council have laid themselves open to the charge that voter turnout
is really not the motive for the change at all. It smacks of a
blatant power grab.
Since the town council is only being asked to consider the one
plan given to them by its committees, and if they insist on the odd
year date, there are still other options. They can adopt the desired
date without extending the terms for what seems to most an
unreasonable length.
We urge everyone to turn out for this meeting and determine for
themselves what the real motive for this change is. However you
might not be heard. The committee chose not too entertain a motion
that a public hearing be held.
When the mayor expressed his opinion that a high voter turnout
does not favor the incumbents, we disagree. We believe that any
member of council who votes to increase his or her term without a
better reason than thus far advanced will be in serious trouble with
however many voters whenever the election does take place.
An
Editorial
Voices For The Wilderness
"We’re in an endless war with the developers, a very
critical and deadly war, and they don¹t even know they’re in one.
All they know is that if they are patient enough and amiable enough,
sooner or later they can pry some more fragile marshland from the
politicians and take it away from the people forever. They rip it
out of the ecosystem so completely it is as if it never existed.
They put up condominiums and increase the sewage load, the traffic
load, fire and police protection, water supply, education costs. But
they make enough to join the right clubs, drive the right cars and
build their own homes overlooking the water. And they go to
breakfast work sessions of the Chamber of Commerce and the Committee
of One Hundred to talk about the problems of the Gulf area. And
after they are dead, the damage they do goes on and on, visited on
their descendents forever. Their great-grandchildren will live in a
world that is drab, ugly and dangerous. A world composed of an
unending Miami or Calcutta or Djakarta, sick and stinking."
John D. MacDonald, writing about the Mississippi Gulf Coast in 1976
"Woodman, spare that tree!
Touch not a single bough!
In youth it sheltered me,
And I’ll protect it now."
John Pope Morris
"Money waits."
Michael Frome, when asked what is the most important thing a
conservationist must know.
The two 45-foot high gum trees were over 100 years old, but
nevertheless destined for the woodsman’s axe. They had survived
hurricanes and tornadoes for over a century. Lately they have become
a little joke around Town Hall.
This is because a few people who call themselves preservationists
objected to the developers of Belle Hall in cutting down the trees.
They took their battle to Town Hall and won. The developers now have
to build around the trees, no easy task since they sit at the
crossroads of Long Point Road and Interstate Highway 526.
When over 400 people showed up at a public hearing in March to
protest the development of a large tract of land on the Wando
River, the voice of a high school student alone spoke of the big
picture. He wasn’t concerned with land use plans, zoning charts or
traffic reports. He was concerned with what kind of world he would
have to live in when he reached the age of those who wish to develop
the land.
So before one thinks this is just a spare-time activity for little old ladies in tennis shoes or the rambling thoughts of an idealistic youngster, listen this old timer who tells us of crabbing and fishing, less than 25 years ago, along the canal between Mount Pleasant and The Isle Of Palms. “There were hundreds upon hundreds of birds in that marsh. It was a beautiful sight, all that white upon the green.”
That place he talks about has been taken over by the affluent whose mostly seasonal homes now grace an island where alligators roamed freely and people rode horses up and down the beach which was open to everyone.
We read in the real estate pages that another development is finally getting around to completing their own riverfront plans with more affluent homes. We also hear rumblings of the destruction of scenic roads and commercial malls from here to Georgetown.
And we ask, all in the name of what?
While money waits, the preservationists can only save two trees at a time and the high school student has to be content with being a voice in the wilderness crying for its own salvation.
Shouldn’t the rest of us give them a hand?
Towns and commissions are concerned with tax bases, population growths making sure that each property owner gets to do what he wants with his land. Meanwhile we all end up in a ribbon of concrete, guided by green signs, traffic lights and buffers.
While we lament the loss of a town’s identity in a sea of fast-food franchises and chain logos,
the herons and egrets, opossums and deer have no place to go. What old folks took for granted, fishing with a cane pole, walking in the woods, hunting rabbits, with a .410 shotgun, or watching sunsets along the rivers, are joys to be denied their great grandchildren. In many places, a simple walk along the beach is already a thing of the past.
Michael Frome is an aging man now. John D. MacDonald has found his houseboat in the sky and John Pope Morris had passed away before those gum trees at Belle Hall had begun to sprout.
Meanwhile, this news outlet will bring you the latest on the workings of councils committees and commissions. And when the money is let loose, we’ll be there to record it.
An Editorial
The People Behind The Wheel
We took a poll, nothing scientific. We just asked people in the
take-out lines, the barber shop, the library, the coffee shop and ye
olde neighborhood pub two questions: What
is the best thing about Mount Pleasant? What is the worst?
Answers to the first question varied.
They liked the friendly people, the scenery, the
charm, proximity to the beach and the city of Charleston and
the slow and easy pace.
As to their least favorite thing,
they could have said mosquitoes, hurricanes and the threat of
hurricanes, the shortage of distinct seasons and for some,
insufferable hot days. The people we talked to only mentioned one
thing.
The traffic.
The people who need scenic
Longpoint Road in order to go and come
from anywhere were reminded on Easter weekend about how bad traffic
can be. Cars were backed up for miles. Those who found it necessary to
use Towne Center had difficulty, once inside, getting back out to U.S.
Highway 17.
It doesn’t take much of a stretch to
envision what more traffic could do to the quality of life in
Mount Pleasant.
Traffic is a symptom of the eroding
of that quality, the things considered best about Mount
Pleasant.
It is that quality of life that more
and more people are showing up to protect in public hearings. In
March, over 400 people showed up at a public hearing to discuss the
wisdom of a huge development which would greatly increase traffic on
already crowded 17. (Another large development for that neighborhood
is also on the drawing board).
The people who came to the hearing
were, for the large part, neighbors of the proposed development. They
spoke about the traffic and the quality of life as it affected them.
Residents of Hobcaw Point also filled Town
Hall chambers to object to a development in their neighborhood.
Yet these developments reflect
traffic and the quality of life in all parts of town.
Longpoint Road serves residents of
Snee Farm, Snowden and Belle Hall as well
as the Longpoint subdivision. Already more
traffic can be expected as Seacoast Church plans another building and
Belle Hall shopping center completes its development. Traffic
generated from north of the city can put a burden of those living in
these areas. Those who must use Mathis Ferry Road, another scenic
road, are affected by what happens at Hobcaw
point.
Every time a new development goes
up, be it residential or commercial, it affects the quality of life in
every part of the town. And it is not only big developments that can
threaten the quality of life. A series of small ones, those which
don’t attract large public turnouts, have already been approved and
more are crowding the agendas of the Town Planning Commission and
ultimately the Town Council. Many of these do not comply with the
Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The plan, which is designed to
protect the people from overdevelopment and development in the wrong
places, is being ignored.
There are several watchdog groups who
are alerting the people about this trend. Every subdivision has a
property owners association. It would behoove these groups to band
together in their common cause.
It is also time for the business
people of Mount Pleasant to become concerned with a trend
toward huge, traffic-generating retail outlets who seek to gain entry
into the community without regard to the Land Use Plan.
And it is time for everyone to think
of the environment. Any assault on the marshland or other open space
areas is usually defended only by one or two people. It is not enough
to build an estate for one’s heirs that consist of money, houses,
businesses and automobiles. They need to live in a place where nature
abounds.
We need a Town Council which is in
touch with these concerns.
If all the residents who are
concerned about traffic and the quality of life would be more
outspoken about what happens in all the neighborhoods, this council
would have to hear.
Then the council would have a choice:
They must either listen to the people and preserve what is best or
ignore them and perpetuate the worst. But they have to hear it first
from the people who care.
-
BH
A Look At History
Iraq War Not New
Although it may appear to modern Americans that present war with
Iraq is without precedent in that the United States is going to
war with a country that has neither directly
provoked us nor offered any immediate threat, there is an
historical parallel.
When James Knox Polk took office in 1845, a strong expansionist feeling had swept the country. The term, “manifest destiny” was the catch-phrase used by Americans who wanted to see the nation reach the Pacific shores. In addition, thousands of Americans had swept into Texas, revolted against the Mexican government and asked to be annexed by the United States.
Polk was determined to have both Texas and California. He was the first “dark horse” to be elected President. One historian, Sam W. Haynes of the University of Texas at Arlington, describes him as a man who was provincial in both his outlooks and his tastes.
“But one of the truly striking things about Polk was his self-confidence. In the diary he kept as President of the United States, there's absolutely no evidence of self-doubt.
“He doesn’t seem to have had any interest in or aptitude for conceptualizing broader policy issues. He was much more interested in policy implementation. That’s not to say that Polk was not interested in the big picture--he just needed someone to draw it for him.”
Polk feared that Mexico, which had large debts abroad, would cede California to Great Britain. Furthermore he had lost-property claims against our southern neighbor. He did two things: He placed an American Army under Gen. Zachary Taylor into territory claimed by Mexico, and he sent a diplomat, John Slidell, to negotiate for the business claims, establishing the Texas border at the Rio Grande River and offering to buy California.
When Slidell arrived in Mexico City he was met with an outraged public, hoisting anti-American signs, and a government who wanted none of it. They broke off diplomatic relations with the U.S.
What did this say about Polk's understanding of international diplomacy? asks Haynes. “The subtleties of diplomatic negotiations between nations were completely lost on someone like James K. Polk. He practiced a policy of brinkmanship. It didn’t really matter whether the country was Mexico or Great Britain--the negotiating posture remained the same. Polk really believed that he could pressure both nations into surrendering to American demands.”
The Mexicans, believing American troops occupied their soil thus claiming provocation, set the spark in motion.
Another war which could have been settled by negotiation was the war with Spain. Although an American battleship, the U.S.S. Maine was blown up triggering the start of war, the battleship was there because powerful business interests were itching for a war.
Consider the words of a Senator Thurmond of Nebraska: “War with Spain would increase the business and earnings of every American railroad, it would increase the output of every American factory, it would stimulate every branch of industry and domestic commerce.”
Following the Maine incident President McKinley demanded that Spain agree to a cease-fire with the Cuban rebels and negotiate a permanent settlement with them. In an effort to avoid war, Spain agreed.
However McKinley did not inform Congress of the agreement and instead asked Congress for authority to use military force to end the Cuban conflict. Essentially, this was a declaration of war.
Does any of this sound familiar?
It is too early, of course, to put the Iraqi war into any kind of historical perspective. Yet historians are bound to note several things.
First, as in the war with Spain, there are economic motives present, not only in securing American oil interests but there’s money to be made in the so-called rebuilding of Iraq.
Historians will probably wonder at the other motives of American insistence of going to war without its traditional allies and the support of the world community. That Hussein is a brutal dictator is well documented, but he lacks the capability of being any kind of imminent threat to the United States and most of the other “coalition” nations.
The Bush administration continues to boast that it “will rid the world of terrorism,” hardly anyone, including the 67 per cent of Americans who say the U. S. is doing the right thing, believe that the war on Iraq will cause a significant reduction of terrorist attacks.
Our legal claim for going to war was that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Although the story is not over, none have been used against us nor have any been found. Yet other hostile nations definitely have these kinds of weapons and may soon be able to use them.
Our professed desire to “liberate” the enslaved people of Iraq has been thwarted by the Iraqi people themselves. Instead of an oppressed populace, hungry for democracy and dancing in the streets with their victorious liberators, a farmer out shooting at American helicopters with an old rifle has become the new hero of the Arab world.
The promise that war would be over swiftly with a minimum of loss of American and Iraqi lives has not panned out. That the Iraqi government would fall like “a house of cards” after our initial “shock and awe” attack, has not come to pass in a fortnight of fighting. The only ones shocked are the U.S. military commanders and the politicians who apparently never figured that the Iraq military and civilians would fight back.
History has been hard on President Polk. His war was popular at the time, but he did not seek re-election. Will history treat Bush in like fashion and will the majority of Americans who support the war re-elect him?
Regardless of history and the fickle electorate, we have to ask what will Americans gain by this war? The claim that it will bring stability to the Middle East is a delusion.
At least in the Mexican War, we added New Mexico, Arizona, Texas with its politicians, Hollywood with its subsequent world of make believe, and Las Vegas with its perpetual razzle-dazzle.
Sending the French a kiss
From Andy Rooney’s ignorant remark about France owing its freedom to
the United States to the two jerks in Congress who want to
change the name of French fries to Freedom
fries, French bashing has suddenly become a popular fashion in America.
With all the bashing going around, I sometimes wonder
were it not the French who blew up the World
Trade Center. The trend can be vicious such as people who send hate mail
to French cheesemakers, less volatile like
those who boycott American hotels with French names and silly, but no
less hurtful, those who pass along those jokes which imply cowardice on
the part of the French military.
In 1781, France came to the aid of the struggling and almost defeated
American colonies. The British had two large armies in America, one in
Virginia and one in New York.
The American Army was in New York and a small contingent of soldiers
led by the Marquis De Lafayette, a Frenchman, by the way, who
volunteered his services early in the war, was all that kept the British
busy in Virginia.
Washington wanted to attack the garrison in New York. The French with
its naval forces wanted to wage war in Virginia. The French plan
prevailed. The British, under Lord Cornwallis, was ordered to join the
New York Garrison. In a small but important engagement, Lafayette
attacked and helped prevent the juncture. Washington and the French
marched to Yorktown.
The rest is history. The British were defeated at Yorktown. Had the
French not intervened, there may never have been a United States.
The United States declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917 and
entered the almost three-year-old European conflict, with the first
American troops arriving on French soil on July 4. Five weeks earlier
the French had lost 187,000 men in the Neville offensive and were almost
completely defeated. The demoralized French army fought on in the
trenches for almost a year while the American soldiers sang songs, wooed
French women, wrote letters home and did everything but fight. A small
engagement near the Swiss border was the only American action until
April 12, 1918 before the bulk of the American army ever saw battle.
None of the returning doughboys
would ever join in a joke about French courage. How many Frenchmen does
it take to defend Paris? In Barbara Tuchman’s remarkable book,
The Guns of August, the
story is there. A small band of French soldiers with the aid of
civilians (taxi drivers took troops to the battlefield) withstood a
German onslaught and saved their city.
When we came to the aid of the French in World War II, it was only
after we ourselves had been attacked by the Axis powers. When we marched
through their country again in 1944, we did not buy the right to dictate
our own unpopular foreign policy on the French. No one is turning over
in a grave at Normandy. Those buried there and in Flanders Field fought
for a just war alongside allies who were dedicated to preserving peace.
There were no ulterior motives on the part of the allies in that war, no
political agendas to further, no economic
interests to promote. Those men fought for our rights and the rights of
all people, even those disagree with us.
And there was no phony patriotism back home. College boys were
drafted along with farm boys. No one had to fly the flag on automobiles
or wear slogans on their clothes. Everyone pitched in and did their
jobs.
How easy it is today to mouth the pledge of allegiance, pray for the
President and send a tasteless e-mail.
One thing that emerged from World War I was the idea of nations
banding together for peace instead of war. This concept led to the
United Nations after World War II, but today the influence of that body
is being eroded, and with it the dream of an international peacekeeping
force, and with that the dream of real and lasting peace on earth.
Of course, this country should not be bound by other nations, but
neither should they be bound by our decisions.
The next time you have the urge to e-mail the latest rude joke about
French cowardice, think of Lafayette or those crazy cab drivers who kept
their meters off for freedom.
The French people have always shown graciousness, appreciation and
hospitality to the millions of American tourists who have graced their
museums, theatres, shops and bakeries. To give up on France is to give
up champagne for life.
Since Germany is also opposed to this war, perhaps we should rename
America¹s favorite food the Londonburger.
Bryan Harrison
The Annexation and Development Plan:
Who Is It For?
Ben Marino and company have snubbed their noses at Mount
Pleasant’s Planning Department and its
effort to enforce the town’s comprehensive use plan. It is as though the
plan, worked out over the years with a lot of citizen input, did not
even exist. Now, they plan to ignore the hundreds of people who have
banded together to tell them that their proposed Carolina Park
development is unwelcome.
The only way they could possibly succeed is to know that they have
the politics in place. As the proposal goes before the Planning
Commission Wednesday night, they are using two final arguments to get it
by the commission and into Town Council chambers where they see it as a
sure thing.
One is the lure of economic development and the promise of jobs for
the area. However, if one examines this prospect even superficially, it
has its flaws.
First, any high-tech or light industry would expect the town to go to
a lot of expense to prepare for their arrival and that includes a road
to connect the industry park to connect with the small airport which the
developers claim is an industry attraction.
Too, one must consider who the jobs are for. Will this be a job boost
for Mount Pleasant residents? Hardly.
It will simply mean more people will come to live in Mount Pleasant,
bringing with them pressure to already over-crowded roads and
over-crowded schools.
The proposal calls for a huge housing development to be implemented
over a period of 20 years. But considering Mount
Pleasant’s growth restrictions, it will take
that time to make the housing available. Where then will the
beneficiaries of the newly created jobs live in the meantime? The
developers keep stressing that their development will be a place where
people can walk to work so they will relieve the traffic in Mount
Pleasant. It is a long walk to Georgetown.
Another factor is the belief on the part of some that if the town
doesn’t annex the property and allow the development, Charleston
County will be taking it out of the town’s control.
That is assuming that the county will have to throw its own
comprehensive land use plan out the window also. Their plan is similar
to the town’s with an eye on unbridled growth
and a threat to increased traffic.
The voters of Mount Pleasant and Charleston went to the polls
last year and enacted a half-cent raise in the sales tax which states
money for road construction and maintenance while at the same time
“discouraging over-development” and “preventing unnecessary highway and
road expenses.” The people also voted to protect “farms, forest and open
space from over-development.”
Although still awaiting a court ruling, the sales tax was initiated
by Charleston County. Clearly, Charleston County is committed to
a long term plan which would exclude a development of this magnitude.
If the court rules against the tax increase there
won’t be any money for roads and highways, necessary or not.
However it is put, the development along with the traffic generated
by the new Wando High School will put
pressure on U.S. Highway 17. The plan to widen this road calls for the
beginning of construction in 2008, but even this may not happen. The
money for this project is under a state bond which may run out before
then. If that happens a new bond would have to be issued and several
more years might pass before the widening actually begins. Already,
35,000 trips a day are being measured on 17. Don’t be surprised if the
final traffic estimates on the Marino project predict 80,000 trips on
the highway before the development is finished.
So the developers come dangling a carrot with one hand and a not very
veiled threat on the other. Some would say it is an attempt to buy the
people off with a highly speculative promise and if that doesn’t work an
attempt at political blackmail.
In the final analysis, the commissioners will have to ask who will
benefit from this project: The voters or the politicians, the people or
the developers?
Marino Tract Proposal:
Too Much, To Soon
When Ben Marino announced he was going to bring a development plan
for his huge tract of land before the people of Mount Pleasant
for the third time, he promised it would be better than his previous
plans.
In effect he was saying that he knew where the problems lay and had set about to correct them. It is a plan that provides for economic development, places to live, an internal road running parallel to U.S. Highway 17, more room for school construction, adequate shopping facilities and lots of green space with bicycle and walking trails.
In short it would be a self-contained subdivision, a town within a town, a place where people could live, work, shop and go to school without venturing into the outer world.
People were calling it “smart growth.”
Prior to the Planning Commission’s hearing Jan. 22, the town’s planning staff shattered the illusion by issuing a report saying the projected development, now called Carolina Park, was in effect a far cry from that ideal.
Citing The American Planning Association’s definition, the planners said the proposal fell short of the “smart growth” concept. Furthermore, it found 27 items which did not follow the town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, notably a huge shopping mall and high density multi-family dwelling units.
Undaunted, Marino and company tried to convince the commissioners that the time was now. Luring the commission with claims of prospects for their economic development component, they sought to justify their plan, saying that by the time the project was completed the population of Mount Pleasant could soar as high as 80,000 people.
Regardless of the years it would take to build the 1,400 units of housing, the town has in effect a three per cent cap on building permits. The available permits are rapidly diminishing. Multi-family permits are expected to be exhausted by this summer.
They also claimed that their road plan would not put pressure on Highway 17 as the resources for new infrastructure had been found since they first proposed developing the land. However, it was disclosed that the developer would need financial assistance from the town for part of the development’s own infrastructure.
Since the town’s traffic engineers had not had time to project trip figures, it was anybody’s guess as to how it would impact traffic. Current and future road improvements underway in the town will not be finished until 2008.
The only thing for sure is that there will be three ways in and three ways out for several thousand residents, shoppers, school children and industrial employees to satisfy other needs.. Although the developers claim the internal road system will connect with 12 other subdivisions, they argued that the huge shopping mall complete with “big box” stores, will alleviate traffic so that people in the 12 communities would not have to travel to North Charleston. Yet,it doesn’t take into account the traffic generated by schools and shoppers who would be attracted there from south of the property.
It also became clear that the developers will need the retail component of the plan to provide up-front money to implement economic development.
. The retail complex would be three times the size of Towne Center, almost the size of Citadel Mall and Northwood Mall combined. It would become a regional shopping center, and since it would have to be built first to support the rest of the development, it would be too much for the present population.
The planning staff also felt that the development violated the “smart growth” concept in that it was automobile rather than pedestrian dominated. The trails are too far from the schools. Commissioner Toni Handshoe gave the plan a reality check when she commented that “people don’t walk to work.”
Most of the people at the January meeting were there to protest the effect on the quality of life that residents of The Low Country have come to expect. The residents of Darrel Creek Trail say it will destroy their neighborhood. Residents of Park West claim they don’t need any more traffic dumping. Not only will the traffic impact adjoining communities, such as Charleston National, but could be felt by such subdivisions as far away as Snee Farm and Longpoint. Too, the regional shopping center could have a negative business impact on Towne Center and the Coleman Boulevard corridor.
Although, the developers will provide some of the services normally required of a town, a $6 million fire station will have to be built and 1miilon a year will be needed to maintain it. The subdivision will also be dependent on the town for police services. It was pointed out there will be a need for an additional public library, which is controlled by the county and a post office which is controlled by the U.S. government.
Although the developer agreed to go back to the town planners on some of the objections, it is questionable that they will succeed in bringing it into line with the land use plan by Feb. 12. So much of the project is questionable, so much is uncertain, so much is speculation that it is hard to see how the Planning Commission, dedicated as it is to upholding the integrity of the land use plan, could recommend it.
In the past, developers who have not met the requirements of the land use plan have been sent packing by a unanimous vote.
The developer and its supporters claim that economic opportunities will be lost unless the plan is adopted now, but the price tag would be more traffic than the town could bear even with its projected infrastructure. Those unnamed and non-contracted industrialists who like the Mount Pleasant location may go somewhere else now, but industry itself will not dry up. If they would come here right away, they would have no place to live.
At best, the project is premature. The town’s infrastructure is not in place, the project’s own infrastructure is uncertain. A huge regional shopping center is necessary to fund the project. No accurate traffic figures can be projected and residential growth is and will be strained. It will negatively affect the charm and beauty and way of life of its neighbors.
Carolina Park may provide a tax base that will keep taxes down without cutting services. The project may prove an economic boost and provide some white collar jobs.
But its subsequent passage may also may be the turning point in a town’s history where it surrendered its character to uncontrolled urban sprawl benefiting neither the people who live here nor those to come, but only the developers and politicians who will profit from it.
|
|
