Special Election May 7 SOUTH CAROLINA 1st CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Lunz Group Questions

QUESTIONS FOR CANDIDATES

IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA 1^st CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Prepared by Pete Silveston and the Robert Lunz Group Executive committee

PREFACE:               The Robert Lunz Group of the South Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club with almost a thousand members is a major group in this constituency concerned with conservation of our natural resources, outdoor recreation and the health of the environment. Your answers to the questions which follow will be distributed to Group members via our newsletter. Copies will also be sent to the Post & Courier and to the local weekly papers. If you wish, you may attach a statement to your reply to our questions.

QUESTION 1:   The Savannah River site of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency continues to receive atomic wastes from across the nation and appears to have become a de facto disposal site for the country. What are your views of this issue ?  Should the State welcome the jobs created or should disposal be controlled for just wastes generated in the State or for wastes generated from nearby States through State-to-State negotiations ?  Should the Federal Government regulate location of disposal sites and interstate transport of wastes ?

 QUESTION 2:   Some counties in the State propose opening or expanding landfill sites to accept wastes from other States or other South Carolina counties. Recognising that transport on roadways of other counties may be involved, and odor and runoff problem that may cross county borders can occur, should control of landfill, or, indeed, other waste processing operations, occur at the county level or at the State level ?  Does the Federal Government have a role to play in devising rules for waste disposal decisions ?  How can we promote recycle over landfill/waste disposal ?

 QUESTION 3:    It is widely agreed that this Congressional District will experience a large influx of people, probably retirees, in the coming decades. How should the District prepare for this influx ?  The questions which follow address this question of population growth.

 QUESTION 4:    Should we create green space as parks or nature reserves in the District to preserve native flora and fauna and for recreational purposes such as hiking, camping, hunting and fishing ?  Should land preservation be done with public funds  ?  If so, how should the funds be raised ?  State or local taxes  ?  Bond issue ?  Does private initiative (business) have a role to play  ?

 QUESTION 5:    Cap’n Sams Spit, on the western end of Kiawah island, has been proposed for a large housing development by the property owner (a private company). The spit is now undergoing erosion by a tidal river and has been washed over by the ocean several times in recent history. Future flooding and destruction will require certainly large expenditures of public funds. Attempts to halt development through ligation have failed. What are your views on this issue ?  Should the State or the Federal Governments acquire the land for green space or recreation ?  Is this a federal  issue ?  How do you balance the rights of developers versus the risks of bailouts using public funds for developments on environmentally risky land ?

 QUESTION 6:    Road building and roadway expansion consumes public land and increases air pollution, run-off and noise. Should local or State government promote public transport, such as buses ( preferably electric) or light rail to reduce reliance on roads  ?

 QUESTION 7:     Extension of the Rte. 526, the Mark Clark Highway, to Johns Island is proposed to reduce congestion, improve mobility and facilitate evacuation from the Sea Islands. Do you favor completion ?

 QUESTION 8:     Use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gs) destroys the environment through mining or fracking, contributes to air pollution and to global warming. How can we in this District promote alternative energy use  ?  What can the Federal government do  ?  The next questions deal with promotion of alternative energy use.

 QUESTION 9:   Permitting solar leasing in South Carolina is currently stalled in the Legislature because of monopolies granted to utilities on the sale of electricity. This type of leasing allows businesses and public bodies, such as schools, to reduce their electricity costs and could substantially expand the use of solar energy.  What is your position on solar leasing ?  Does the Federal  Government have a role in this issue ?  What could be done ?

 QUESTION 10:    South Carolina, unlike many other states, does not have an alternative energy mandate.  Should one be created by the Legislature ?  Should there be a Federal alternative energy mandate ?

 QUESTION 11:    South Carolinians delight in rich, delicious chocolate.  To promote the consumption of quality grade chocolate, do you favor reducing the import duty on Swiss Choccalate ?  (Question submitted by my Swiss son-in-law)

Excerpts from Mark Sanford’s response by letter were:

“Your questionnaire was most comprehensive and would require thoughts and detail and I think further explanation rather then yes/no to many questions such that I would like to come back to it. It deserves time.

All I can say is to call Dana Beach at the Coastal Conservation League as to get a glimpse of how I've approached conservation and environmental issues both during my previous time in Congress and the Governorship...as you may know I was the only Republican Governor to receive the endorsement of your organization, which was the case during my second run for Governorship of South Carolina.

………during my Governorship we were very aggressive in trying to preserve land and more land was set aside and protected in my eight years, more then any other time period during South Carolina history. Additionally, we worked with Senator Chip Campsen and others in funding the conservation bank which contributed to that effort.”

Excerpts from Eugene Platt's response by letter were:

Question 1:  ”……The Federal Government  should regulate and, ultimately, be responsible for proper disposal , as well as interstate transportation, of all nuclear waste produced in our country.”

Question 2:  “Proper transportation and disposal of (non-nuclear) waste should be handled by the individual counties affected---but regulated by the State. Yes, the Federal Government has a role when such waste impacts on interstate commerce. Educating the public on its advantages may be the best way to promote recycling over landfill/waste disposal. Also, recycling centers (including drop-off sites) should be as convenient to as many people as feasible.”

Question 3: “……..the First Congressional District should prepare for the expected influx by having in place legislation and regulations to protect sensitive environmental areas, especially the beaches, marshes, wetlands in general.”

Question 4: “Yes, we should designate and protect as much green space as possible. Such land preservation is best accomplished with public funds to preclude involvement by individuals or entities with ulterior goals not in the best interests of the public and/or the environment. The State income tax (and certainly not additional sales taxes) would be the best way to pay for this. The role of “private initiative” should be limited---and carefully monitored.”

Question 5: “……. Irresponsible developers dro not consider him their friend. His feelings are reflected in this prayer from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer: ‘For the Conservation of Natural Resources”

Question 6: “Yes, government at all levels (local, State, Federal) should promote public transportation. The advantages of “commuter rail” over “light rail” should not be dismissed.”

Question 7: “No elected official in South Carolina has been more vocally, consistently opposed to the proposed extension of I-526 than Eugene Platt.”

Question 8: “…….We in the First Congressional District can lobby elected officials and speak out in favor of alternative energy use on all appropriate occasions.”

Question 9: “I support the leasing of solar panels. Although this is more of a State issue than a Federal one, the Federal Government could allow income tax deductions for solar leasing just as it does for other energy-enhancement costs.”

Question 10: “Yes, there should  be alternative energy mandates at both the state and federal levels.”

There was no reply from Elizabeth Colbert-Busch.

 

 

Urge Charleston County Council to Say No to TIF

Urge Charleston County Council to Say No to TIF

The Beach Company, a huge Charleston real estate and development firm, has proposed the creation of a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district to help fund their "Kiawah River Plantation" (KRP) resort project on Johns Island, which will include over 1,200 resort homes, a golf course and commercial uses on the Mullet Hall Plantation property. TIF’s raise funding for development by borrowing against the project’s future revenue, meaning that property tax revenues are diverted away from community needs like schools to paying off a private development project lucrative for backers.

Traditionally, TIF’s are meant to be used as incentives to redevelop blighted areas. To use them instead to fund a luxury resort sets a dangerous precedent. If the Beach Company is granted the TIF, many more developers will follow hard on their footsteps, diverting tax dollars away from important community needs like schools and fire stations to bankrolling the projects of wealthy developers.

Ever since the approval of the I-526 extension, the assaults by developers on Johns Island have been relentless, from challenging the urban growth boundary meant to protect the rural character of Johns Island for the benefit of a developer (Vic Rawls, also a Charleston County Council members who will have the opportunity to vote on the TIF) to reopening of the discussion of a Sea Island Expressway to the TIF for the Beach Company.

The losers in this rush to high-end development and the building of the infrastructure necessary to sustain it are the rural, indigenous populations of Johns Island, its agricultural communities, its wildlife, and all those who enjoy its as yet unspoiled beauty. To then ask taxpayers to foot the bill for the projects of wealthy developers, sacrificing in the process public funds needed for schools and other essential public services is ludicrous.

If the TIF is passed, the Charleston County School District will lose at least $63 million in tax revenue over 45 years, Charleston County will lose almost $12 million, Charleston County Parks & Recreation will lose over $5 million, and St. Johns Fire District will lose $4.5 million

Take a moment to write the Charleston County Council (some members of which oppose TIF and a number of which are undecided) before their May 2 meeting and respectfully ask them to vote against the TIF. If you can, attend the May 2 Finance Committee Meeting and, if the TIF is passed by the committee, the County Council meeting on May 7 at the Lonnie Hamilton Building on Leeds Avenue in North Charleston.

Charleston County Council Members 

Herbert Ravenel Sass, III--- against the TIF, voted for 526 ext

(843) 766-7500 (O)

(843) 693-8305 (C)

hsass@charlestoncounty.org 

Dickie Schweers---against the TIF, voted against 526 ext

(843) 513-9229 (C)

 dickieschweers@tds.net 

J. Elliott Summey--Led effort to approve 526 extension

(843) 200-4244 (C)
esummey@charlestoncounty.org 

Henry Darby--Possible swing vote on TIF/Voted against 526 ext

(843) 901-6793 (C)

henrydarby@msn.com 

Teddy Pryor, Sr. --voted for 526 ext

(843) 958-4030 (O)

tpryor@charlestoncounty.org

A. Victor Rawl- Voted for 526 extension, recently successfully challenged Urban Growth Boundary on Johns Island so he could pursue a large development on Johns Island
(843) 766-7334 (H)
vrawl@charlestoncounty.org

Colleen T. Condon --

Voted Against 526 extension

(843) 225-7288 (O)
(843) 225-7289 (Fax)

colleen@colleencondon.com  

Anna Johnson--

Possible swing vote on TIF/Was swing vote that allowed approval of 526 ext after initially oppsing

(843) 795-3970
ajohnson@charlestoncounty.org 

Joseph K. Qualey-- Against the TIF, Voted against 526 ext
(843) 693-3434
 jqualey@charlestoncounty.org 

Suggested Text of Email:

I am writing to ask that you vote against the TIF. I do not think that taxpayer dollars should fund a development that will be profitable to a local developer while taking much-needed education money from our children. This also sets a dangerous precedent for future development and gives the illusion that the developers and not the citizens are the first priority of our legislators. It will also speed the hasty development of Johns Island with little or no real thought on how to encourage smart growth that respects the environmental significance, the beauty, the rich history, and the rights of the citizens of Johns Island.

This is a voting issue for me. I need to see some leadership and forward thinking from my representatives and believe that they represent all citizens and not just the best interest of developers.

Lose-Lose Decision

Last evening (December 13, 2012)  Charleston County Council made a Lose-Lose choice when they breathed new life into a transportation option that they had unanimously rejected over a year ago.  After a strong push by the business community and the City of Charleston to complete I-526, the interstate that currently extends ¾ of the way around the Charleston Metro area, the Council caved in a 5 to 4 vote to approve Alternative G which, if built, will be a low-speed parkway with 6 intersections, running through a corner of James Island County Park and through the heart of James and Johns islands.  Most people, if they are honest, will tell you they prefer to see I-526 completed as a high-speed expressway.  Alternative G is a compromise plan with the selling points being that it is the lowest- cost alternative to complete the interstate and the easiest for which to obtain acquisition rights because it will directly impact the fewest property owners.

With the inclusion of last- minute amendments to the proposal that add fly-overs at two intersections and double the distance from the parkway from 500 feet to 1,000 feet for property owners to make diminution in value claims, an undetermined increase in cost and number of acquisition rights has been added to the project, diluting the arguable merits of the option. The Council added other band-aids such as green buffers, all without studying the feasibility of the amendments.  This came after refusing to study claims from the Nix 526 folks that there are engineering solutions to resolve traffic congestion on the sea islands that would be less expensive than Alternative G and would impact area residents to a far lesser degree. As it was, many on the Council had not seen some of the amendments ahead of time. Voting on the measure in a Committee Meeting and a Council Meeting on the same night got the deed done in time to lock up the promised funds before the composition of the SIB board changes in January but did not allow time for thoughtful review. The question of whether the amendments materially change the whole proposal may be an issue of concern.

We credit the Council with good intentions, long-suffering patience, and compassion.  We hold the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) accountable for their carrot and stick approach, first promising revenues that may exist far in the future for a project that is rated  15th in priority in the state, and then threatening to require Charleston County to repay the $11 million tab already spent for multiple engineering studies.  On top of committing taxpayers to a very expensive parkway, the County still needs to bond multiple smaller projects to alleviate traffic congestion at already designated choke points so that residents of the sea islands can even get to the parkway. It has been suggested that these smaller, less expensive projects that needed to be undertaken anyway may have been enough to relieve traffic congestion.

Much attention was given to what the direct effects to property owners nearest the proposed parkway will be, but the indirect effect of a roadway that is projected to increase development on Johns Island between 20% and 40%, thus threatening its rural character and thereby affecting all the residents, did not seem to really make an impact.  Other indirect effects include rising property values that come with denser development.  That may sound good to many, but apparently not to a large number of existing home owners on fixed or limited incomes that would be hard-pressed to pay the resultant higher property taxes. This proposal also increases the vulnerability of heirs’  property and the whole Gullah culture along with the working farms that supply the Charleston metro area with fresh produce.  Increased development brings with it more traffic congestion, thus a vicious cycle is promoted rather than thoughtfully mitigated.

When will we learn that what we build, where and how we build it, determines the quality of a place far more than any Comprehensive Plan or Zoning and Development Ordinances?  Where we place infrastructure shapes future growth patterns.   Simply sighing and saying that an area is growing and we can’t do anything about it except accommodate it shows regrettable short-sightedness.

Angela T. Jones, Conservation Chair
The Robert Lunz Group of the SC Sierra Club Chapter

Camp St Christopher Remarks

The mouth of the North Edisto River is bounded on the north by Seabrook Island and on the
south by Botany Bay Island, and right in the middle is Deveaux Bank. The biological diversity of
this area, with bird and turtle rookeries in summer, is absolutely enthralling. At the water’s edge
on Seabrook Island is Camp St Christopher. The facility is owned by the South Carolina Diocese
of the Episcopal Church and serves both Church and secular clients, providing housing and
dining services to visiting groups. In addition, the Camp is host to a Barrier Reef environmental
education program that reaches several thousand school children each year.

The national Sierra Club rented space at Camp St Christopher earlier this year for staff
meetings. The South Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club has also rented the facility for events
in years past. As noted above, the location is fabulous and services provided have always been
exemplary.

Recently, the relationship between the Sierra Club and Camp St Christopher came to an end, as
was reviewed in the Faith and Values and Editorial sections of the Post and Courier. The issue
arose because of positions regarding same-sex marriage. The national Episcopal Church and
the South Carolina Diocese have differences on this issue, with the Diocese (owners of Camp
St Christopher) taking the position of not recognizing same-sex marriages. The national Sierra
Club has a policy of non-discrimination towards same-sex marriage. Given these differences, the
national Sierra Club elected to inform Camp St Christopher that as long as their policy remains
in force, the Club will not make further use of the facility.

The local Sierra Club affiliate, the Robert Lunz Group (representing Berkeley, Charleston,
Colleton and Dorchester counties) was not consulted on this issue and did not have any input into
this decision to cease patronizing Camp St Christopher. The decision to take this course of action
was completely “top-down.”

The Robert Lunz Group does not have the financial resources to book Camp St Christopher,
and the South Carolina Chapter only does so rarely, so the main Sierra Club users of Camp St
Christopher were national staff members. The national Sierra Club has many constituencies, and
balancing potentially disparate needs can be complicated.

The Robert Lunz Group (we are members of the Sierra Club; some of our members are
Episcopalians; some probably identify as LGBT) gets caught in the middle and has no input in
either direction for decisions made.

The country is coming to grips with a host of environmental issues, from climate change to
fracking to maintaining air and water quality standards. Locally we face a number of issues,
including sea level rise, the possible extension of I-526, funding for the SC Conservation Bank,
nuclear waste disposal, bicycle safety, and alternate public transportation. The Lunz Group
has only volunteer staff and a limited budget. We oppose or support public policy through our
activist volunteers and general membership. The symbolic decision to withdraw our patronage
of Camp St Christopher will have little economic impact on the SC Diocese of the Episcopal
Church and spends political capital that we are short of here in South Carolina. Whether taking the stance against the Diocese has significant repercussions in membership or fundraising
remains to be seen. In the meantime, we remain committed to the Sierra Club mission: To enjoy,
explore, and protect the wild places of the Earth.

Of course life is nearly always hectic, so its nice to be able to kick back and relax from time to time. I recently collapsed into the easy chair and happened upon a documentary about the aftermath of the earthquake, the resulting  tsunami and the disastrous disabling and subsequent explosions at the Fukishima  Nuclear Power complex. What we have to deal with there is huge area that is basically taken out off the books as far as human habitation is concerned. A larger region might be amenable to clean up but at phenomenal cost. Another TV documentary dealt with the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl power plant. The program showed how the former industrial city's town square is not being slowly reclaimed by the surrounding forest and in particular how a series of wolf packs are now living in the region and apparently producing pups. That human exclusion zone around Chernobyl will be there for generations. Ironically, because of this moratorium on human activity the entire region has reverted to what is in effect a wildlife sanctuary albeit a flawed one. In the US the nuclear power industry had been on long decline after the Three Mile Island incident. There was a renewed interest in nuclear power up until the March 2011 Fukushima disaster and sequelae. Here in South Carolina there are plans afoot to expand the V.C. Summer nuclear plant on the Broad River in Fairfield County SC near Jenkinsville. The proposed expansion will take about 40 million gallons of water out of the Broad River PER DAY to use for cooling. Now the plan is to actually pump the water from what is currently the cooling  reservoir but the reservoir is filled from the river. On the Savannah River in Georgia the Vogtle nuclear power plant is planning expansion from two units to four. This will obligate additional water withdrawal from the Savannah river at time when interbasin water transfer in Georgia is being discussed to as to satisfy growth in the greater Atlanta region.  As Steve Willis reminded us at the April membership meeting, these two potential water removal projects fly directly into the face of the plans to dredge nearly forty miles of the Savannah river to "improve" shipping access for deeper draft ships. With less fresh water flowing to the sea, the saltwater intrusion up the watershed will increase. On top of all these contraindications for nuclear power are these considerations. As part of the process to build a nuclear powerplant, the sponsoring Utility company can begin charging increased rates to current power users right now. The Utility is guaranteed to be able to charge users sufficiently to make a profit. On top of all that you as a consumer are not even getting stock in the company and if at some point the utility decides not to go forward with the plant you the consumer still have to pay the rate increases to cover their debt. Now a friend of mine often says as she views life, 'what's the worst that can happen?'. If you examine Chernobyl and Fukushima you can  see the worst that can happen if there is a serious accident and you can examine your power bill to see how you are paying right now to take on the additional risks. Is it worth it to you? Is it worth it to your descendents?

Looking Ahead at Charleston's Port Deepening: A Panel Discussion

It’s often difficult to know with certainty how to place events into a proper perspective. A case in point is the proposed deepening of the Charleston ship channel from its present control depth to 50 feet. On the one hand Charleston has always been a fine harbor and commerce by sea has always been central to the human economy. So on the face of it you might think that making the rather narrow ship channel a mere 4% deeper would have minimal adverse effects. Further more if it helps commerce this might be enough to persuade you. As Sierrans we appreciate that most actions, when viewed narrowly can seem a good idea. After all who has not been tempted for a second helping at the supper table without consideration of the consequences. But it’s in our Sierran nature to discipline ourselves to take a broader view and to understand as many outcomes as possible for our public actions. You might also think that its all well and good look at both sides carefully but who has the time? And so, the Robert Lunz Group has gone to some effort to recruit a panel of experts to discuss with you various aspects of port deepening project. Our panel will include Dana Beach, Executive Director of the Coastal Conservation, Lt Col Edward Chamberlayne USACE Charleston District Commander, Jim Newsome Chairman and CEO of SC State Ports Authority and Steve Willis

from the Georgia Sierra Club. The discussion will be led by Steve Eames of the Coastal Conservation League. Here are some thoughts that occur to me and that I have read about. What happens if we do not deepen the channel? Will our transshipment tonnage drop grow or stay the same? Does EVERY port in the South East US have to be dug to the Panamax level? Its worth pointing out that deepening the Savannah River ship channel requires a bit shy of 40 miles of deepening compared to well under 10 miles for Charleston. There are substantial environmental risks to deepening the Savannah river. What about such risks for Charleston’s harbor? I want fishers of all ages to continue to harvest and safely consume fish, crabs and shrimp from our harbor. I trust that the waters of the harbor will remain swimmable throughout, that the manatees and dolphins remain and that the sturgeon will return. I hope that the historic forts of the harbor are not adversely impacted and I would like for Crab Bank to remain intact as a viable sea bird rookery whatever the outcome. There is plenty of intriguing political and legal activity going on as well. So watch the P&C daily for news, check out the background info on the USACE Project 45 web site, and plan to bring your thoughts and questions to ask the experts on Thursday April 5, 2012 to listen.

March 1 Membership Meeeting Talking Points

1. Wolves in Idaho and Montana were removed from the endangered species list through a rider in the budget bill. The rule was not subject to judicial review and this ruling cannot be taken back to the courts. Recently, the Obama administration has agreed to strip wolves of their endangered species protections in Wyoming as well. This also includes parts of Utah, Oregon, and Washington. Lawmakers defend their actions as a solution to in the interests of residents and ranchers.

2. Hunting (called harvesting) began in Idaho August 30. A bill is circulating in the Idaho legislature that would allow ranchers to use motorized vehicles, night vision scopes, neck snares, foothold traps, electronic calls that imitate other wolves and injured prey, traps with live bait, and ultra-light aircraft like powered parachutes. Permission has been granted to gun down 75 wolves from aircraft. Idaho Gov "Butch" Otter approved legislation that directs him to issue an executive order declaring a statewide wolf disaster emergency. No one has been injured by a wolf in Idaho since the species was restored. People have been told to stay in their houses, refrain from outdoor activities like walking and jogging, and to keep pets inside. In fact, no wolf has attacked a human since the federal reintroduction in the 1990's, and of two million cattle, only 75 were killed by wolves in 2010. To date 285 wolves have been killed in Idaho.

3. In Wyoming wolves will be shot on sight across almost 90% of the state. Wolves will remain protected in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and will receive limited protections in a handful of other areas. Wyoming is poised to allow virtually unrestricted killing of wolves across the majority of the state. This also includes killing pups. Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead told state legislators to approve the plan before concerned citizens had a chance to challenge it in the courts. The controversial wolf plan has gained national attention as it would allow wolves to be killed along the John D. Rockefeller Parkway that connects Yellowstone and Grand Teton.

4. Montana "sportsmen" are offering $100 bounties for dead wolves. Some radicals are even calling for "wolf war, round two".

Good news

1. In December 2011, The Washington state Fish & Wildlife commission approved the state's final wolf recovery plan, charting a course toward the long-term sustainability of its growing wolf population. There are least 27 wolves and three breeding pairs in the state. Unfortunately, that's one less than they would have had after a collard wolf from the Diamond Pack wandered into Idaho and was trapped on Dec 20.

2. The number of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico has grown for the first time in four years. The fragile population is up to at least 58 wolves and six breeding pairs. But this small population is still extremely vulnerable. Arizona and federal official need to release more wolves into the wild. Last year, several releases were planned by the fish and wildlife service, but never happened. Several wolves are eligible for release in Arizona and New Mexico right now. Some of the wolves have even been specially conditioned to avoid preying on cattle. They deserve a chance at life in the wild.

Pat Luck

Membership Chair Robert Lunz Group