Park plan angers green space fans4.5 acres in Waterfront Park could be developed By Prentiss Findlay (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Gary Santos MOUNT PLEASANT — Angry proponents of preserving green space in the town's new Memorial Waterfront Park on Monday expressed concern that Town Council has a plan to develop about 5 acres of the project instead of leaving it as open space. "That's what I call paper green, not green space. A walk through some trees and shrubbery sounds good to a lot of people," said Joe Mims. "You might vote this in, but I won't vote for you in the future." About 70 people attended the meeting at Moultrie Middle School that was sponsored by Councilman Gary Santos, who was the only council member present. They said the town has a dearth of communal areas where people can gather to socialize. And with gas prices sky-high, recreational areas close to home make even more sense, they said. "The natural landscape is really what the Lowcountry is all about. We need to make sure that we are preserving some of what makes the Lowcountry special," said Diane Lauritsen. Many speakers supported a dog park to occupy part of the 4.5 acres. Joanne Goodhue urged dog owners to bring their pets to Tuesday night's council meeting. Tim Keel said dog owners would show up as a group and see if they could get into the meeting with their canines. Keel said a petition with 200 signatures has been circulating urging council to use the 4.5 acres for open space. Moultrie News columnist William Hamilton said council had a plan to develop the 4.5 acres for tourism. "You can bet this is not for public use. We'll be building a cheap convention center. This is the only land left for this end of town," Hamilton said. The state Department of Transportation offered the town 22 acres for free but required that it be used for the park. Town Council voted last month to explore purchasing 4.5 acres of that property to open it to other uses. Ideas such as a corporate meeting center or a performance venue have been floated, but nothing has been decided. Santos argued that council should have held a public hearing on how the 4.5 acres at the rear of the park might be used before it voted to separate the land from its deal with DOT. After a consultant held charrettes on the issue offering the public a chance to express its preferences for the park, the 4.5 acres was designated as open space with a dog park and a picnic area on an artist's rendering of the park at Town Hall. That use has been removed from the project rendering, but nothing has been substituted in its place. Councilman Joe Bustos questioned spending public money to buy land for private use. He has noted that no current plan has been offered for the 4.5-acre parcel. Bustos and Santos voted against the proposal. The first phase of the park, which does not include the 4.5 acres at issue, will have a 1,200-foot pier, a war memorial, a visitors center, a sweetgrass center, a playground and parking. It's scheduled to open Memorial Day weekend 2009. Mayor Pro-Tem Kruger Smith has said that purchasing the 4.5 acres would give the town the option to partner with someone to do something more creative. He compared the situation to negotiating a purchase of 43 acres on Shem Creek instead of condemning it, which gave the town more options for how the land could be used. The town filed condemnation proceedings, but then reached an agreement with the owners to buy the land for $6 million. Under the agreement with the DOT, the town will not own the 18 acres for the first phase of Memorial Waterfront Park, but it will own the improvements. Eight acres from the pier to Wingo Way will be park land, and another 10 acres under the bridge will be for parking and playgrounds. Councilman Billy Swails and Mayor Harry Hallman have described the 4.5 acres in question as some of the most beautiful and valuable property in the state. Hallman said he is a dog lover, but he thinks a dog park is more appropriate elsewhere. |
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 31 comment(s)
Posted by CedarPosts on June 10, 2008 at 1:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mt. Pleasant and area residents would do well to learn from Beaufort's Water Front Park project.
While it looked good on paper the finished product and the use of the product is an embarrassing failure.
Beaufort's Water Front Park has endured massive cost over runs, constructions delays, shoddy construction work, sink holes, and sewage back ups.
Since the park was completed last year at a cost nearly twice first estimates and 18 months behind schedule the "Green Space" remains mostly behind a chain link construction fence and fabric screen which is in place whenever green the space is "rented out" for public admission charge events and private functions.
Beaufort's additional failure to update the downtown municipal marina hasn't helped the water front's image. Derelict boats barely afloat are tied to rusting docks and rickety piers.
Now Beaufort residents are faced with the prospect of additional taxes to pay for the town council's actions of four years ago, when the council approved the plans and contractor behind closed doors.
More about Shem Creek and Beaufort's Water Front Park at:
www.lifefloating.blogspot.com
Posted by theronce on June 10, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a tree hugger and harvester, I can only shake my head at some of the other huggers that have no room to give a little. 4.5 acres is just a small portion of the total. I can drive down most roads anywhere and find a tree to hug.
Posted by Jon62 on June 10, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Keep the tourist downtown and leave Mt. Pleasant alone. We like our green spaces, grass, bushes, doggie poo and all.
Posted by RTC on June 10, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Citizens of Mt. Used To Be Pleasant, don't even waste your breath. Town council will do whatever they want concerning anything that matters to the residents.
It is all smoke and mirrors to hold a public meeting on anything in this town.
They never allow matters of importance to be put to public vote.
They don't care what you think, so vote them all out come next election.
Posted by GG on June 10, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Early, you hit it on the head.
You know how fanatic many dog owners are about their animals. They don't see that their dog's poop is offensive; so much so, that they leave the "treasured piles" all over my neighborhood and probably yours too.
I don't want a dog park anywhere in MP. It's sickening to think about the "end" results.
(Fanatic dog owners: truth is truth. Don't load up this comment section with statements about how you always pick up the shyt.)
Posted by Creaux on June 10, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a former dog owner I'll admit dog parks are filthy. They are full of holes and poo. But that is the purpose of them, to give owners and their dogs a place to play and run free without junking up the rest of the area. With that said 4.5 acres is awfully large for a park dedicated to dogs (and poo and holes). Many cities have much smaller dog park fenced in at a much larger open park. If Mt. P did this would people be that upset?
Also what is so wrong with 4.5 acres left as greenspace that is already connected to a larger area already slated to be greenspace? There are areas further north on 17 perfect for another cheap hotel, or convention center.
Posted by CMLMADDOG on June 10, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
GG is retarded.
Please stay away from the polls today.
Posted by MSC on June 10, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think Mayor Hallman would be more appropriate elsewhere.
How much longer is his term, anyway?
Posted by IOP4ME on June 10, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is unbelievable that the dog park issue is still so misunderstood. I don't think any dog owner is asking for 5 acres of dog park. How about throwing up a fenced in area to let dogs run off the leash that covers about .5 acres. That is all anyone is hoping for, and that would keep the rest of the park free of the waste left by the minority of irresponsible dog owners that do not clean up after their pets. Communal dog parks also help to educate those dog owners that are less responsible about their obligation to clean up after their pets. The town council is trying to go by the book here for modern community development. That says "green space" and "business development." What they are failing to understand is that the two don't necessarily go hand in hand. Responsible community development takes dedication to a plan over time. Develop the green space we so obviously lack now, and figure out another project for the corporate development. Trying to combine the two here is just greed, laziness and lack of foresight.
Posted by greengirl on June 10, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Make no mistake-this issue is less about a dog park and more about trusting city officals. This is a bait and switch people. The comment from our Mayor that this land is "Too valuable" leads to the question--Too valuable for whom? The citizens of Mt. Pleasant? God forbid they be given something THEY want. Revenue for the city? Puleeze !
You have taken land that was given for free, refused it, and now offer to buy it so a commercial venture can be considered. SHAME ON YOU. It is time to stand up and be accountable and responsible to your public. Will be your last chance, since I am quite sure the majority of you will never be re-elected.
Posted by bigwhip on June 10, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MSC....tonight is the night you will learn more about HH's future. Stay tuned. Early, you and 1776 are real trips.
Posted by greengirl on June 10, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Coldbeer,
If we think along those lines, I must comment that we all "pick up the slack" on many issues. As a taxpayer, I pay for schools I have never/will never use and for roads I most likely will never ride on. It is part of being a member in a community.
I still contend that is not about a dog park, as much as it is about officials who do not do what they promise. Who do not respect passive recreation green areas for all. Who are more interested in tourism than the people who actually live here. Who sleep in the beds of big developers and corporate minions.
"They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot"--*sighs*
Posted by bubbbie on June 10, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
coldbeer not all taxpayers have a yard to fence in. Some of us really on public space to exercise our dogs. I don't think having a public area where taxpayers can go and exercise there dogs is "picking up slack". I don't think anyone is looking for a free hand out here(except the politicians of course), it's public use and a good chunk of the public has dogs and wants a dog park. We pay for the public use why shouldn't we get some say in how it's used?
All you people who are cringing about the back end business a dog produces should want this dog park. People are going to bring there dogs to this park either way, why not have an area where they can run free and do there business away from the non-dog people? It would help keep the rest of the park poo free.
Also, people at the dog park police one another. Sure a poo pile might get left every now and again but for the most part people do pick up after there dogs at these parks. It does promote responsible pet ownership.
As a dog owner I'm willing to compromise, we obviously don't need 4.5 acres for the dogs but an acre would be fair.
Posted by zoomru on June 10, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder if they are going to offer different DOG PARKS? We can't let Great Danes and poodles be in the same park can we?? We won't allow organized dog fighting but we sure get "FLEXED" for a good dog owner "STARE DOWN"!! I wonder if we could wager on that??
Kind of like "CADDYSHACK" when wagers are laid on picking buggers?!!
1) Will the wife pick up the poo or the husband? Odds 3-2
2) Will the dog raise the left leg or right? Odds 1-4
3) Will the kid step in the big pile or little? Odds 4-5
4) Will fido break free and ramble across the open park and "pancake" coeds sunning themselves? Odds 2-4
5) Will "Brutus" jump up on a kid with a hotdog? Odds 3-4
Posted by zoomru on June 10, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oops... I forgot number 6
6) Will fido run his moist nose up the crotch of the woman in the pink dress or the coed in the blue one??? Odds 5-6
Posted by wjhamilton3 on June 10, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The big problem is that a convention center will lose money. They're running in the red all over the country. The market is saturated, corporate meeting budgets are being cut and every medium sized city in the United States seems to have constructed one. Now they're bidding for the business, cutting rental charges and sometime even haveing to provide free goods and services to get convetions booked.
Charleston already has a big convention center in North Charelston, a smaller one at Charleston Place, convention and meeting facilities at the Gaillard Auditorium and a new meeting/hotel complex under construction near the Post and Courier Building.
A convention center will also undercut the Shriners, who rely on rentals to help cover their costs on their building at Patriot's Point.
The Mayor always talks about the park as a "tourist attraction" The sailing center, dog park and children's wading foutain have all been eleminated from the plans. What we appear to be building is a front yard and service facility for the surrounding Hotels, including meeting facilities they won't build because they're sure to be money losers.
The Mayor is just not capable of understanding why people want green space in Mt. Pleasant. His new park plan is a quiet place for old men with little of interest to children, teenagers or active adults. It's a park for old men planned by an old man. It is any wonder our teens have nowhere to enjoy?
A very competitive world is ahead for us. Good jobs will go to nice places to live. The mayor said the dog park could be located 15 miles north on Highway 17 but no money is avaialble to begin work on that park and the Town is running a million dollar deficit this year. Why spend money we don't have to build a money losing facility that deprives residents of space they have a need for?
A dog park or an acre of so will be popular and could be largely self supporting by charging for collar tags. It will bring people to the park to enjoy it, as the other eleminated features would have.
The original plan for this park would have been for an active place with things of interest for every age group in the community. What we're getting is a quiet, fairly boring place for tourists.
Posted by Jon62 on June 10, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Early, if you come out of your house with a gun pointed at me or my dog, Please expect to be shot! I shoot back when shot at by some jerk who thinks his rights over ride everyone elses. As for dogs jumping on kids, I don't like peoples little snot nosed brats touching my animals. So a park away from them would be great!!! Dogs rule kids drool.
Posted by grannyofsix on June 10, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Raregar you been following me while i walk my dog havent you
Posted by ptmama73 on June 10, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Give the dogs a .5 acre park. Nothing says it has to be in a "prime" location. Put it in one of the so called less attractive locations. Then most people will be happy.
Early, don't shoot the dogs. I just simply bag up the crap and when I have enough I empty the bag on the offending owners front door stoop. Amazingly, after starting this program, the only dogs that come in my yard are MY dogs.
Posted by southerngrace on June 10, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OMG some of you people are crazy and dangerous. all we are asking for is an area for the pets. larger cities do that, some have big and small pet areas. good idea to charge like the parks.
Posted by Siri on June 10, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll say it again hostile people shouldn't own guns.IMO.
Posted by Rebel_Yell on June 10, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What is so beautiful about land underneath a bridge? Mt P -- DOT gives them 22 acres for free and they pay for 5. Hello, McFly. Why doesn't town council make a big round-about for the 5 acres or another gated subdivision since that is Mt P's identity? I don't care what the city tries to do with it, DOT still owns most of it and my dog will poop on it-eventually--that's my right--I signed up for the draft through Selective Service so my dog can poop on Mt P whenever he wants. Watch your step, morons
Posted by Kerry on June 10, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While on the subject of something green...Does the photo of Santos accompanying the article not cause him to resemble the Incredible Hulk sans the green skin?
Posted by Siri on June 10, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I live in the creek and I drive regularly to parks all over the tri county area. Even with Wannamaker 3-4 miles away, the kids and I go downtown, JI county park, Givhans, Pelican watch just to name a few. Although I have a 4 1/2 ft. 16+ lb iguana that would love a reptile park. Maybe I can get a small special interest group going and get my own green space. LOL.
Posted by Kerry on June 10, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How about consider moving to a home with a large enough yard if you are the "responsible" owner of an animal that requires property on which to excercise? Too many farm animal size canines are confined to the interior of apartments and condos simply because someone decided they needed a pet without bothering to think about the requirements for proper care of the animal.
Posted by CedarPosts on June 10, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
gpc - give it a rest!
Go out and vote!
Posted by RTC on June 10, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kerry, we are in the process of fencing in our very large backyard, so we don't have to use dog parks.
Dog parks should never be very big, as they encourage too many people to use them. You end up with dog fights and then owner fights. I really get annoyed at those that bring tiny dogs to the park, and refuse to use the area that is marked off for small dogs or puppies. Their dogs are usually going to get run over by the larger dogs and then the tempers flare.
I love my pets, but I really prefer to keep them on my own property where no one can ever complain.
They are making too big an issue over this dog park deal, since no one has ever said that that much space would be used as a park just for dogs.
Personally, my question to the town would be: why do you have to build on every damn piece of property that is vacant? Is it a sin to leave some of the land untouched?
The foot of the bridge is already ugly enough with the medical offices and those condos that they somehow got away with building in the marsh.
This town already went to the dogs years ago.
Posted by rollo on June 10, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, Thanks to the P&C and their highly trained graphics dept., we all know exactly what the proposed plans are. LMAO!
I don't know what to argue, because I don't know who where the various ideas will be instituted, how these areas would be defined, or how the areas would be fit into the available space. Without graphics we are all blind and arguing about who should drive the car.
BTW, Give peace, I watched with some fascination as the Hon.Rep. from the former planet Pluto delivered his embarrassing address. Did you see the NBC report by Brian Williams? He was explaining what a huge success the surge has been and how Iraq is turning around to a free nation that believes it can succeed to an independent and sovereign nation.
We're winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, but the Democrats are still fighting for Al-Quida.
Posted by rollo on June 10, 2008 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, Thanks to the P&C and their highly trained graphics dept., we all know exactly what the proposed plans are. LMAO!
I don't know what to argue, because I don't know where the various ideas will be instituted, how these areas would be defined, or how the areas would be fit into the available space. Without graphics we are all blind and arguing about who should drive the car.
BTW, Give peace, I watched with some fascination as the Hon.Rep. from the former planet Pluto delivered his embarrassing address. Did you see the NBC report by Brian Williams? He was explaining what a huge success the surge has been and how Iraq is turning around to a free nation that believes it can succeed to an independent and sovereign nation.
We're winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, but the Democrats are still fighting for Al-Quida.
Posted by rollo on June 10, 2008 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I really wonder who set this 'board' up, and what he does with the 7.75 hrs a day he has left over? OOOOHHHH! I'll bet he attaches graphics to the stories!!!
Posted by 2cents on June 11, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know if it should include a dog park, but think it definitely should be an open green space of some sort for all to enjoy. PLEASE let's not put concrete in the way of people freely enjoying the beautiful waterfront we love so much.