Bikers could enjoy trip through history if city purchases parcelBy David Slade (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Charleston's next greenbelt purchase has surprising historic value and might become a key link in the city's bike trail network. The 2.9 acres of mostly wooded land sits behind the Melrose subdivision in West Ashley by the Village Shaftesbury townhomes. It backs up to the marsh at Longbranch Creek. The parcel has been on the market for five years. Some of the reasons it may not have found a buyer actually serve to make it attractive to the city of Charleston at a price of $270,000. The land includes Civil War earthworks and small wetland areas that may have resulted from construction of those earthworks, said Matt Compton, director of operations for the Parks Department. "We look forward to the opportunity to preserve a little part of history, and provide an amenity," he said. Compton said an existing dike system could allow the city to connect the proposed park with the extensive network of walking and cycling trails in the Essex Farms subdivision, and another connection could be made out to Henry Tecklenburg Drive. The asking price matches an appraisal from 2003, Compton said, so the city is confident it would be getting a good deal. City Council and Charleston County Council would have to approve the deal, which would be financed with funding from the half-percent sales tax. The county's $221 million Greenbelt Plan designated 30 percent of the expected money for urban areas, and Charleston's share of that 30 percent amounts to just under $10 million. City Council's Real Estate Committee recommended that the full Council approve the land purchase when it meets tonight. The four previous greenbelt purchases for city park land were: --$430,000 to reimburse the city for the purchase of the Ellis Oaks parcel on Folly Road. --$1,309,000 for about 9 acres at 1921 Woodland Road in West Ashley. --$3,893,000 for about 33 acres in the Charleston Neck Area, called the Hall II and Van Ness tracts on Austin Avenue. --$1,410,000 toward the city's plan for a 212-acre park off Bear Swamp Road that would connect to a future county park, adjacent to the proposed Long Savannah development in West Ashley. Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@postandcourier.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 12 comment(s)
Posted by Slick50 on March 25, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you check the etymology of bikers, you will see only people riding bicycles will enjoy trips through history if the city purchases this parcel, not bikers.
Posted by kma71 on March 25, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Slick50,
What??? That statement makes no sense!
Posted by wpc3iop on March 25, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Slick50: You mean if the taxpayers purchase the parcel of land, don't you? Seems to me that $270,000 could be better spent on police and fire department improvements...
Posted by ColdBeer on March 25, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think Slick50's comment may be in refernce to the articles incorrect labeling of bicyclist as "bikers" which is the term normally applied to motorcyclist.
This sounds like a good price and nature preserves with walk and bike strails are always nice, but the money should only be spent on those "nice" things when the cities real problems have been properly addressed. I.E. Crime, infrastructure, schools, firefighting equipment an dtraining, Etc...
Posted by ColdBeer on March 25, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry for the typos... fighting a bad cold.
Posted by Running on March 25, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wpc3iop, and ColdBeer
If we always wait on purchasing land for parks, trails etc. until we solve all the crime, infrastructure, and school, problems, then there would be no parks. Show me one city in America that does not have these problems in some form.
It seems that people in this area always complain about bicycles on the road (It delays the end of there trip to work or the store by a whole 10 seconds when they have to slow down to go around a rider). Yet we don't want parks, and/or trails.
Posted by ColdBeer on March 25, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Running, I totally agree that you can't ever get all of the important things fixed and that parks are very nice (I said that in my post). The problem is that the school, road and crime situations in the low country are in VERY BAD shape right now and I think they need to be improved upon before we look at making new parks or bike trails.
I can't speak for the rest of the people that complain about bicyclist on the roads, but as for my own position, it has nothing to do with the ten seconds it takes to drive around them. It has to do with the people riding bikes not following the traffic regulations (I have NEVER seen a bicyclist on the road follow the regulations that way they are supposed too), not helping support the roads through registration and taxes (as we are required to do with vehicles) and not riding safely thereby putting me in a position where I might seriously injure or kill someone and have to live with it the rest of my life.
Posted by theronce on March 25, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Running, a wise person should avoid some roads at some hours of the day or night...maybe some roads at any time. If I like to roller skate, ice skate, ski, or whatever, why should the government buy me anything to do so. I am free to go somewhere where I can do these things at my own expense...and, in sympathy with smokers, at our shared risk (insurance rates). Why do my friends and neighbors need to support my hobbies and interests by buying me a park.
Posted by Running on March 25, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ColdBeer
I see very few people driving cars following the rules. Is 80 mph in a 60 mph following rules. Right know the law states they have every right to be on the road same as someone in a car. However, I do beleive they should follow the rules of the road. I have seen some who don't, but have also seen several who do.
Taxes for your car/truck - I don't disagree.
theronce - I beleive this has nothing to due with smoking. If you want to smoke, knock yourself out. Its your decision and of no concern to me.
Posted by LowcountryMoose on March 25, 2008 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just yesterday, I was riding my bike, weaving in and out of traffic, smoking a cigarette, while talking on my Bluetooth to my accountant, trying to figure out how to cheat on my taxes.
Posted by crankyyankee on March 26, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder what Bobby Harrell's fee was for this transaction?
Posted by Jessamine on March 26, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I always hate the comment "cyclists aren't paying taxes on their bikes and shouldn't ride on the road." Do you folks that use that argument not realize that we actually own cars and houses and DO pay taxes??
And, if bike lanes were put in, most cyclists would use them. Yes, there are some cocky ones who just want to act like they own the road but don't hold that against all of us. I can't ever ride where I want to in Mount Pleasant because, well, I like my life.
So, a few dollars out of all of the taxes taken in to buy a park seems like a good investment just on the basis of preserving some greenspace - a commodity that is rapidly dwindling in the Charleston area.
I will add though, the cyclists who bike on the road are not the ones who will be using the park. "Roadies" will continue to ride on the road. This park is meant more for recreational riding and not a fitness or race training ride that the roadies are doing.