Growth restrictions: Obvious or illegal?Vehement supporters, opponents argue Dorchester development ordinance By Dave Munday (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Meeting this morning--A regional growth planning committee that includes representatives from Dorchester County, Summerville, North Charleston, the two county school boards and other towns in the county will talk about the adequate public facilities ordinance at 8 a.m. today in the Greater Summerville Dorchester County Chamber of Commerce board room at 402 N. Main St. --Summerville Town Council will talk about the ordinance Monday after council's Finance Committee meeting, which starts at 8 a.m. in Town Hall. Vehement supporters, opponents argue Dorchester development ordinance SUMMERVILLE — One of the hottest topics of debate in Dorchester County is a proposal to make builders demonstrate how roads and schools could handle more people before the county or its largest town approve more new developments. Two lawyers have been fanning the growing controversy. "This is, to me, so obvious that this policy needs to be implemented, it's beyond debate," said Summerville attorney Mike Rose, a former state senator who helped draft what's being called the adequate public facilities ordinance. "This is an idea whose time has come. The jig is up. This business of approving developments without thinking about roads and schools is over." On the other side of the issue is Summerville attorney and former 1st District Solicitor Robby Robbins. He recently persuaded the Greater Summerville Dorchester County Chamber of Commerce to pass a resolution against the ordinance. "We are not opposed to the concept," Robbins said. "We are opposed to the ordinance. I think that document is badly flawed. It is giving an unelected person the right to veto a development. That is an unconstitutional shift of power." The ordinance says the town or county will be bound by a report from a school representative on whether the schools could handle the students from a new development. The ordinance also says a new development can't be approved if it puts more traffic on town or county roads whose level of service is considered inadequate, according to the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments' regional traffic model. Robbins said he's against the ordinance not only because it would be bad for business but also because it would be illegal to make builders pay to bring already-inadequate roads and schools up to snuff before the town or county can approve a new development, he said. The ordinance doesn't say anything about developers having to improve existing roads and schools before building, Rose said. It simply says developers will have to wait until roads and schools can handle the extra people before building, he said. "The issue is, 'What are the alternatives?' " Rose said. "It would cause far greater damage to keep approving development in excess of our infrastructure." County, municipal and school officials will meet today at the chamber to talk about the ordinance. Robbins leads the chamber's public policy committee. Rose also is on the committee. "We want to identify what the real problems are," Robbins said. "The issues are much larger than this particular document. What we want to do is have these guys (who are pushing the ordinance) slow down and work with us instead of against us." Rose said the chamber should not be conducting a meeting on the ordinance after taking a stand against it. "The Chamber of Commerce is not the right group to be holding these meetings," Rose said. "It's a special-interest group that's controlled by developers and real estate people." Dorchester County Council has given the ordinance two readings. Summerville Town Council has not given it first reading and will talk about it next week. Reach Dave Munday at 745-5862 or dmunday@postand courier.com. |
Article tools
|
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 9 comment(s)
|
Posted by postman01 on September 4, 2007 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is one of those proposals we hear about that is probably well intended but nevertheless stupid. It is the job of government to RESPOND to the marketplace and provide public facilities in response to the decisions of the marketplace, which is the process that has created the homes and businesses we have now and that also pays ALL OF THE TAXES that pay the salaries of all public employees and the fees of Mr. Rose, who is of course a "special interest".
Mr. Rose is essentially advocating that government shirk its responsibility and demanding that private businesses perform it instead while he uses CHILDISH AND PRIMITIVE left wing psychological warfare nonsense terms like "special interest" in an attempt to put others (meaning US) on the defensive. Ultimately, all of US constitute a "special interest" by his definition since the place we call home was designed and built by what he insists are "special interests". In other words, this manipulative barrister is insulting our intelligence.
Posted by mggoose2000 on September 4, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What's the old saying?, "Money talks and BS walks". It is very clear what is happening in the lowcountry. I've lived here all my life and I've watched these "leeches", also known as "Developers", cut down our trees, pave over our fields and flood our rivers and streams with the runnoff of ashphalt parking lots. Not once; not even once!, have I heard or seen any of these people propose to slow down and improve our roads, schools and services before building more homes and businesses. It's all about "MONEY" folks, not about a better way of life. These "developers" don't live in our neighborhoods; they don't fight traffic to go to work, they don't go to work until the rush is over. They live the life of the "priveledged" and could give a damn about the situation with the roads and the schools. Their children don't attend public schools, one of the parents rides them to school in a big, fancy SUV. Mike Rose might be part of the problem, but maybe he's seen what this overdevelopment of our community is doing to the infrastructure of the area. I applaud his position to stop the approvals until the situation is improved. Remember, we can never go back, so we need to have a plan before going forward. Let's MAKE ONE!
Posted by aconnor on September 4, 2007 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is an issue that is not going to go away in Dorchester County. Subdivisions and housing developments have covered the lower end of the county, and now that all of these transplants have made Summerville an overcrowded mess, they complain about the congestion. Immediately they cast an eye on the upper end of the county, where MOST residents are against the type of uncontrolled development that is plaguing the area below the swamp. As a native son of Zion Community near the town of Dorchester, I for one despise the thought of opening up our laid-back, peaceful communities to hastily built subdivisions and development. This is not the dream of everyone. To me, these types of development are no more than slums of tomorrow (just look at those built in the 80's and you will see their slow decay) and are not welcome in my neck of the "woods."
Posted by sjmehlhose on September 4, 2007 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There should be a moratorium on ALL development until appropriate infrastructure (adequate roads, schools and public utilities) are in place. One solution could require that a non-refudable bond be paid by developers based upon a percentage of the value of the completed project. This could fund infrastructure improvements which would compensate for the impact of develpments.
Posted by Zod on September 4, 2007 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
aconnor, I suggest you start buying all the land around you then. You may live in "Zion" community but you still live in the United States of America.
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE.
It is the responsibility of the citizen to pay taxes on the land that he owns.
What do you people not understand about the two roles?
Posted by wegwam on September 4, 2007 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
let the good people of dorchester county and summerville vote on this in a referendum.
"IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE." -zod
isnt that what this referendum is all about? this ordinance is designed to help the citizens. we only hurt ourselves by allowing uncontrolled growth. how do you pay for schools and infrastructure? taxes. who do you tax? you either tax the common people or the companies that build all these projects. pay now or pay later. nip it in the butt and tax the developers. their profit margins are high enough to handle the small fees.
zod, do you forget the results of the previous elections in Dorchester county? your beloved developers' cronies were voted out of power.
Posted by Bertha90 on September 4, 2007 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obviously some of you think you know all there is to know about the residential development business. Do you know that most of the current developments contribute money to your county through development agreements? Do you know where this money is spent by your county? Neither do I. It is much easier to blame the persons that build the homes and the new citizens than it is to blame those that are truly responsible for the county's fiscal strength and responsiblity to plan appropriately.
The "Growth Haters" are truly setting up a "I have mine, I could care less about yours" mentality in Dorchester County. Challenge your county leaders to be responsible and not to just pass the buck to a job providing and tax revenue contributing industry as the developers and home builders.
Posted by newbattleaxe on September 4, 2007 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see all these nice houses being built and marketed around Summerville. I see all these nice stores being built around Summerville.
I see the schools in Summerville, old and new, already overcrowded, already moving trailer classrooms in. I hear tales of not enough books for the students in these schools. How many students are there in each classroom? Are the classrooms big enough for the number of students in each room? Does each school have enough teachers?
I see inadequate roads in and around Summerville. I see potholes, damaged signs, and hectic road crews doing their best to catch up.
Are the Dorchester County taxpayers getting what they are paying for?
Posted by Reader on September 4, 2007 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I fully support the limits placed on the development of Dorchester County. It is not, as Zod seems to think, the duty of our government to uncritically provide services beyond the level it can afford to subsidize these new tract home communities. The County recognizes what we all recognize: The streets and schools cannot handle the onslaught of new residents.
Moreover, these new developments do NOT, as was asserted upstream, pay the taxes that run our government. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. While these planned communities bring in tax money, they require even a greater amount of money spent in providing trash service, water supply, fire and police protection, road maintenance, and other things. Suburban sprawl results in a loss of revenue for cities and counties.