Thursday, October 3, 2013
Letter To Mark Sanford
Friday, May 3, 2013
Special Election May 7 SOUTH CAROLINA 1st CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Lunz Group Questions
Friday, April 26, 2013
Urge Charleston County Council to Say No to TIF
(843) 766-7334 (H)
vrawl@charlestoncounty.org
(843) 225-7289 (Fax)
(843) 693-3434
jqualey@charlestoncounty.org
Sunday, December 16, 2012
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
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Camp St Christopher Remarks
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.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
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.