Hallman favors corporate retreat over dog parkBy Prentiss Findlay (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Sunday, February 24, 2008
The Post and Courier MOUNT PLEASANT — Mayor Harry Hallman says that he favors a corporate meeting place on five acres tentatively designated for a dog park at the new Memorial Waterfront Park but a decision on what to do with the land is at least two years away. "It's probably one of the most valuable pieces of property on the East Coast," Hallman said. Nearby hotels, Patriots Point, seafood restaurants and golf courses provide the necessary ingredients for a corporate retreat to be a success, he said. Hallman said a dog park could be located elsewhere in the $14 million, 22-acre park. Recently, he mentioned the possibility of a performing arts center instead of a dog park, and dog lovers contacted Town Hall to express their displeasure. "People think I hate dogs. I've got two. One of them sleeps with me every night," he said. Hallman said the notion of a performing arts center was just a possibility, not something etched in stone. A dog park is among the features designated on a consultant's conceptual design for the $14 million project. It was included in the park plan based on public input. The town and the state Department of Transportation are negotiating final details of transfer of the park land to the town. The park will be next to the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge, and it will have the longest pier in the area at 1,200 feet. A war memorial, visitors center, sweetgrass pavilion and playground will be part of the park, which is scheduled to open next year on Memorial Day weekend. At a recent Council meeting, there was brief discussion after an executive session about the future of the five-acre tract designated for a dog park. "No one has said, 'Let's sell the dog park and see about putting a building on it,' " Councilman Joe Bustos said. Councilman Gary Santos has expressed concern that during executive session negotiations, the council has been moving away from its original intent of having a selling that part of the project for development. "Everybody is pushing for the dog park. We haven't gotten this many e-mails in a while," Santos said. Santos said a dog park is a good use for the land because it is inexpensive and popular. Residents in the southern part of town said it would give them a new, closer option for a place to take their four-legged friends. Palmetto Islands County Park in the northern part of town has a dog park. Recently, Council voted 8-1 to proceed as discussed in executive session regards its negotiations with the S.C. DOT for the Waterfront Park land. Santos cast the dissenting vote. At first, he wouldn't say why but later revealed that he was concerned about the future of the dog park and whether the land was being sold to a developer. Mayor Pro Tem Kruger Smith has suggested that a performing arts center for the planned Memorial Waterfront Park is a better idea than a dog park. Smith said the town could retain ownership of the land but offer it to a company that might want to construct and operate a performance venue. He suggested a building to seat 1,000 people, which is about half the size of the North Charleston Performing Arts Center. Nearby hotels, medical facilities and parking make the location a good one, he said. In an e-mail to a dog park supporter, Hallman said the 22-acre waterfront park is better suited to something like an arts center. "The options for a town that will one day approach 100,000 people are too varied to make that commitment (dog park) with such a valuable resource," Hallman said. Bustos said town staff asked Council for permission to look at the possibility of purchasing the five acres slated for the dog park from the DOT because the staff said it might be beneficial to the town to own the property rather than being granted a permanent easement on it. Owning the chunk of land designated for a dog park at the back of the Waterfront Park could in effect protect the rest of the park land as far as how it could be used, he said. Reach Prentiss Findlay at pfindlay@postandcourier.com or 937-5711. |
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 10 comment(s)
Posted by ForPnC on February 24, 2008 at 5:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We could always use another over-priced building placed on over-priced land. I think it's a great idea.
Who needs the natural beauty of trees, grass, flowers, and water anyway? By all means, please keep taking the beauty away from the area.
And folks wonder why the tourists are going away...
Posted by grainofsalt on February 24, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm a dog lover and have a dog. But I don't see turning 5 acres in a location like that into a dog park. A poor suggestion from the start. It may be a popular idea, but is it the best use for the most people?
I'm not in favor of the corporate retreat idea - a great use for people who are NOT local residents, but not something that benefits those of us who live here. A 1000 seat performance center? And I guess parking for those 1000 attendees would also be on the 5 acres? No thanks.
Why not just use the acreage to expand the adjacent park and picnic area? Is green space that everyone can use such a bad idea? (A dog park, by the way, is NOT green space that everyone can use.)
Posted by moonpie on February 24, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dog park - Popular idea - yes - extremely stupid - yes!
I would have to agree with the mayor on this one, way too expensive and valuable pc of property just to have dog pooh all over the place. And I love dogs like no other.
Posted by bigwhip on February 24, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One thing for sure......money is no problem here! Build a Taj Mahal. They live good in Mt. Pleasant.
Posted by RTC on February 24, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's an idea....let the citizens vote on what should be done with the property. We are paying for it one way or the other.
A dog park for part of the property would be nice, but they don't need to use 5 acres. Dog parks that are too large cause mass mayhem. There has got to be something pleasant that all can enjoy without putting up a convention center or a corporate retreat. The parking required for such proposals would be a nightmare, and we seriously do not need either. There is already too much congestion at the foot of the bridge due to the condos and office buidings.
It is getting to be really ugly down on Wingo Way.
Posted by mdtpace on February 24, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
condos, condos, condos, and maybe a starbux, a wal mart, and a TGIFridays
Here's a thought, just make it into a park, not a dog park, but a park, like Piedmont park in Atlanta, where people can go and enjoy being outside, if you make it a "dog park" then it is going to be covered in dog sh*t, which no one wants, dogs would be allowed, but only if their owners pick up after them, you could have a concert there, but it wouldn't be just for concerts, and for God's sake make sure there is plenty of parking and easy traffic flow in and out
just because the land is vacant doesn't mean that something needs to be built on it
Posted by theronce on February 25, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since the owner, the government, hasn't really decided what to do with the property and since I feel no particular inclination to subsidize pet owners or private business, sell it and put the money back into the public funds. Like money, the land, is burning a hole in the government's pocket.
Posted by chassand on February 25, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The greed of town council always rears it's ugly head!!! If some of the residents did not want a dog park, the time to make other suggestions was at the public meetings. The dog park supporters showed up, where were you then?
Posted by grainofsalt on February 25, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hear ya, chassand. The problem with the public meetings is that they are not publicized well unless there is controversy. And many times, controversy only arises AFTER the results of the meeting.
Many people just don't know about the public hearings on such things until they read a story like this, explaining it in detail because the paper found some "hook" they thought was juicy (such as the "mayor favors corporate retreat").
I hate to use the "I didn't know about it" excuse for many of us, but Council would certainly understand. After all, this is the same group of folks who believe that our current Town Council election date is too difficult for people to remember. The date HAD to be moved because people are too dumb to show up any time other than November. So surely they can't believe that and then feel the buried notices about public hearings in the paper is sufficient.
Posted by pithy on February 25, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just keep spending the TAXPAYER'S MONEY! This city is crazy!
Please, advise me of the date each month that they hold the council meetings.
When do I vote this year? Please, advise me of that date also.