"Television is a chewing gum for the eyes." -Frank Lloyd Wright
This week, consider turning off your teevee. Particularly if you are not watching it. Join thousands of parents, teachers, pediatricians and other families by participating in TV-Turnoff Week 2007 happening April 23-29.
Television is an equal opportunity vice; almost everybody gets sucked into the couch once in a while to lose themselves in a world of intrigue, fantasy or (un)reality. My favorite is Channel 55, the old black and white movie channel. Pretty tame for a vice, but I’ve found myself glued to the screen when I should have been returning phone calls, making dinner, writing Lettitors, or flying kits with my kids. Young or old, we can all get lured into mindless programming that passes for entertainment, flipping through hundreds of channels at warp speed (if you are a man). Almost everybody rewards themselves with a little “veg” out time in front of the tube to unwind from a long hard day of over stimulation by all our other media sources.
I admit I’m a teevee kid, having watched the first-ever episode of Sesame Street in the Seventies and continuing to watch it even today (consuming it mostly as one would second-hand smoke, the familiar music wafting into the kitchen, my two-year old squealing with delight). Why do I refer to it as ‘teevee’ rather than “TV’? Because a friend in the industry who is a bona fide Television Writer refers to the horrid little box and all things associated with it as ‘teevee’, sort of as a chide I guess. And I think it’s funny so I adopted it.
Pick up my remote control and you can click on more than 900 channels running the gamut from PBS and HBO to the Monster Truck Channel, the Soufflé Channel and 44 different How To Remake Your Home And Surprise Your Neighbor shows. We don’t actually watch many of these shows, come to think of it. Really, I bet we watch a total of 6 different channels (none of which are network television). We consume cable news like water and kid programming such as Noggin and Nick Jr. like popcorn. So when it comes down to it, my family is guilty of watching a little too much. Not as much as some people, but more than others so this week we’re pulling the plug to see what happens.
Click. (Announcer’s voice) “Brought to you by TV-Turnoff Network, a nonprofit organization that encourages everyone to watch much less television in order to promote healthier lives and communities.” This organization is dedicated to the belief that we all have the power to determine the role that television plays in our own lives. Rather than waiting for others to make "better" television, just turn it off and reclaim time for families, friends, and for ourselves. I’m all for that.
TV-Turnoff Week is a grassroots project that works. More than 65 national organizations, including the American Medical Association, the National Education Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, support or endorse TV-Turnoff Week. According to the web site www.tvturnoff.org, TV Turnoff Weekempowers people to take control of technology and not let technology take control of them so they can live healthier lives. Hmmmm, I’m thinking there may be room for Toss Your Blackberry Week and Hide Your Laptop Week in May and June.
Since 1995, more than 24 million people all over the world have participated in TV-Turnoff Week. Children and adults from all walks of life take part through schools, churches, or community groups, as families or individuals. And most people who have participated, reduced their teevee-viewing as a result, according to hundreds of responses to TV-Turnoff Week follow-up surveys.
Look! I found some scary facts:
- On average, children in the US will spend more time in front of the television (1,023 hours) than in school this year (900 hours).
- Forty percent of Americans frequently or always watch television during dinner.
- As US Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher said at the Kick Off of TV-Turnoff Week 2001, "We are raising the most overweight generation of youngsters in American history...This week is about saving lives."
- Correlation between obesity and a sedentary lifestyle, which includes couch potatodom, has been widely studied and presented as a fact of American culture.
Turning off the television this week gives us a chance to think, read, and create without background noise clutter. To connect with our families and engage in our communities. To be more aware of the avalanche of media we consume on a daily basis. Like popcorn. With butter on it.
|
Opening Question: What do you think are the 3 main issues facing our island and its citizens?
Jane Ellen Herron: The three main issues facing our Island today are: 1) Maintaining the residential/community aspect of the Island, 2) protecting the historic structures on the Island and 3) managing the commercial growth to prevent over-development especially in the small business district of the Island.
Tim Holbrook: It is time for Council to address the following comprehensively: 1)Business district density, noise and parking. 2)Historic structure designation and size and scale. 3) A land management plan for Town-owned land and open spaces.
Charles “Buddy” Howle: I think that the three main issues facing our island and its citizens are the increasing loss of space, the overflow of people into our neighborhoods from the commercial district, and the natural increase in the cost of running our town coupled with no increase in our tax base to offset this.
Jerry Kaynard: 1. Management and protection of our natural resources. Since the creation of the recreation and conservation area district on the front beach many years ago, many of us have expected the town to obtain expert advice on the management and preservation of those natural resources. No plan has yet been developed or adopted. So, I believe the original intent of the conservation district is still to be properly defined. As trustees for our natural resources, town council is obligated to complete this effort and maintain these resources for the enjoyment of our residents and for those future generations who will live on our island.
2. Development of a comprehensive plan for the commercial district . More than thirty years ago, town council decided to limit commercial activity to a few blocks on Middle Street. This was an important policy decision which distinguished our island from other communities who encourage greater commercial activity. We have already decided to preserve our island for single family residential homes. This was a good and far-sighted decision. We have severely limited short-term rentals. Town Council needs a comprehensive plan for the small commercial district so that businesses serve the needs of our residents and respect the residential character of our island.
3. Livability Issues: Administration and Enforcement of existing laws and Town policies. I would describe “livability issues” as the umbrella for discussing the role of our town government in meeting its obligations for the safety and welfare of its residents. Are we fully prepared for emergency situations, like hurricanes and evacuations, for the protection of life and property, and for the process of returning after natural disasters and quickly restoring basic services to our residents? Can we do better with issues of traffic, speeding, abusive parking in residents yards and driveways? While the SC Department of Transportation controls our streets, can we be more persuasive in obtaining traffic control devices, speed control devices, paving of potholes and rough streets, signage, etc. Can we do anything to assure that the Ben Sawyer drawbridge is replaced with a new drawbridge on schedule? Do we have sufficient and safe facilities and personnel for police operations, for town offices and the operations of our government? Can we do better with public recreational facilities for our families and especially small children? I think we can do better with recreational facilities. Our Park Foundation does a fine job. With more resources, I believe we can better serve our families.
Larry Middaugh: Issue #1. Control growth of residential and commercial districts to maintain the current superb living area.
A. Prevent multi-family dwellings and lot subdivision.
B. Prevent further development of commercial district, particularly businesses that contribute to parking and noise problems.
C. Get the Ben Sawyer Bridge restored and prevent its replacement with a fixed-span bridge.
Issue #2. Refine and enforce Town Ordinances
A. Work with Design Review Board to ensure that house design and construction complies with zoning regulations for neighborhood compatibility.
B. Ensure that dog regulations, particularly on the beach are enforced- - Plastic sacks with dog excrement lying on the beach is unacceptable.
C. Ensure adherence to vacation rental house regulations.
D. Develop regulations to control noise at the border of commercial and residential areas.
Issue #3. Maintain Town-Owned property to reflect its natural beauty.
A. Solidify the ordinance prohibiting dock construction across marsh areas.
B. Change the tree cutting ordinance that currently allows flat-cutting wax myrtles on town-owned front beach property to five feet. Acquire more information regarding the protective function of beach-front vegetation against waves associated with hurricanes.
C. Work with the Planning Commission to consider how current town-owned land other than the RC1 and RC2 areas is to be used and protected.
Pat Votava: 1. Preserving the unique character of our residential island, including keeping population density low through maintaining single family, one-half acre lot sizes and other regulations. 2. Planning for the future of our island, including a comprehensive plan for the commercial district and an environmentally sound management plan for the accreted land. 3. Maintaining the Town of Sullivan’s Island’s ownership of water and sewer system.
Mary Jane Watson: The three main issues are a. Safety – The need to protect our residents and visitors: at home, the beach, our churches, and the commercial district. b. Preserving The Island Lifestyle – The quality of life that we have all come to appreciate needs to be maintained in these ever changing times. c. The Commercial District –We need a comprehensive plan that is well thought out and achievable. This shall afford more balance between the residents surrounding the commercial district, safety issues, and the continued success of the local businesses.
Question #1: How should we manage the remaining open spaces on the island? Specifically address Battery Logan and accreted land.
Jane Ellen Herron: It is our duty to be good stewards of the environment. It is vital that we protect the green spaces and natural habitats of our Island. A careful land management plan is crucial to ensuring that green spaces are manicured but not butchered. Battery Logan property, accreted land and marshes should be protected and remain in their natural state.
Tim Holbrook: A management plan for accreted land needs to be developed that would preserve and encourage the diversity of habitat of the maritime forest rather than a monolithic hedge. Council should move quickly to transfer Battery Logan to the National Park Service to insure that it is protected, as well as move to protect the marsh areas of the island.
Charles “Buddy” Howle: We should manage these areas with the help of qualified consultants. Council is attempting to follow this path with the help of The College of Charleston. Once the initial fact-finding report is finished, we will engage consultants to guide the town on how these areas should be managed. The accreted land should be kept in its natural state as much as possible. However, if our consultants recommended certain procedures like proper drainage, selected cutting or pruning, or other activities that would enhance the overall quality of life for our island, I would support that. The town is in the process of protecting Battery Logan by giving it to the Park Service. The other land that was part of that property has been deeded to the Land Trust. I supported both of those actions.
Jerry Kaynard: Management of our natural resources and open spaces is a much larger issue than trimming of trees and bushes in green areas. We must address rodent control (rat infestation) measures, mosquito abatement procedures, standing water and breeding marshy areas, and public access path maintenance. The recreation and conservation area district is a public trust to be maintained and preserved. We lack a comprehensive plan developed with expert input. There is little or no management of the recreation and conservation area district.
I served on the Board of the SC Department of Health & Environmental Control for six years and worked to protect the environment by resisting nuclear and hazardous waste disposal in our state, by obtaining state inspectors on site at the federal government’s Savannah River Plant and by fighting against disposal of Philadelphia waste on barges shipped to South Carolina for disposal in our landfills. I have filed lawsuits to stop hazardous and unhealthy garbage dumps in the City of Charleston and I have been active to protect pristine shorelines on the Wando River from shipping and Port Authority development. I love the marshes, the ocean, the wind and the sun and all of our natural resources which should be maintained and preserved. Without a plan to manage our natural resources, we will continue to have little oversight and no long-term plan or vision for preservation of the conservation areas. Town Council cannot be diligent in the protection of our natural resources without a plan for future preservation.
With reference to Battery Logan, Town Council has discussed conveyance of this land to the National Park Service for maintenance as part of Fort Moultrie to further preserve this natural resource. The use of this land and its preservation is still to be determined in negotiations with the National Park Service, but the responsibility still remains on Town Council.
Larry Middaugh: A. Sullivan’s Island is a barrier island and should reflect the natural beauty of barrier islands to the greatest extent possible. B. Battery Logan needs to be protected. Since Open Land Trust declined to accept Battery Logan, I agree with the current efforts by Town Council to convey the area to the National Park Service for permanent protection as part of Ft Moultrie. C. Two very important open areas owned by the town are the RC1 (Front Beach) and RC2 (Marsh) areas.
The RC1 area was established in part to prevent another layer of homes adjacent to the beach as occurred on IOP in the 70’s. Town ordinances indicate that the RC1 areas should retain their natural state to the extent possible and that Town council has authority to control vegetation growth. Regulations for the RC1 areas are provided in Sections 21-71-73 of the Town Ordinances. In general “trimming and pruning” the vegetation in RC1 are to be performed by town licensed commercial contractors in accordance with the “highest professional standards” and according to supervision by a consultant. I recognize two problems with current regulations. First, insufficient detail is provided to define “the highest professional standards of trimming and pruning”. Second, a citizens committee co-chaired by A. Wiedeke and M Tannenbaum reached a compromise to establish a 7-ft restriction on myrtle cutting in 1991. Three years ago this 7 foot limit was reduced to 5 ft. With the 5 ft limit, there is no way that the area approximates its natural state. It is flat, with many dead myrtles, excessive vine overgrowth, and a substantial amount of cut branches littering the ground producing potential fire hazard. I would like to work with the Planning Commission to help refine the ordinance to accomplish its intent, maintaining the RC1 area, our public property, to approximate its natural state.
The RC2 area is the marsh area at the back of the island. As we all know, the marsh is the source of much of the ocean life and needs to be protected from excessive interference. A recent effort to permit extended docks into this public area was restricted by the efforts of a number of citizens and Town Council. Currently Sec 21-76 of Town Ordinances prevent construction of docks in marsh areas between Station 18 & Station 27 and limit dock length and size in other RC2 areas. The current ordinance is sufficient but needs permanency. I would like to work with the Planning Commission to help refine the ordinance to ensure long-term protection of the RC2 area, perhaps by requiring unanimous approval by Town Council for change.
Pat Votava: Concerning the accreted land, I sought the opinion of Dana Beach at the Coastal Conservation League. Several years ago Dana got Chris Marsh, an ecologist, to assess the accreted land situation and develop a management plan. The idea was that the Town would take responsibility for implementing a long-term management approach. Dana believes this “would eliminate the patchwork of decisions and individual actions that have taken place and move the area toward the most ecologically appropriate configuration and within that framework allow for the views and breezes that front beach folks want.” I concur with his expert advice, but this has not happened to date. I believe the Town needs to seek the objective guidance of our available experts and set a finite date to implement a long-term management approach to the accreted land.
To provide additional protection for Battery Logan, the Battery is now in the process of being conveyed by the Town to the federal government as part of Ft. Moultrie’s quest for National Park status. The Town Of Sullivan’s Island Comprehensive Plan states under Land Use: “Enhance and increase public and protected open space whenever possible. Encourage the transformation of town owned property into public and protected open space. Place a conservation easement on the back marsh.” I agree with these goals of our Town Comprehensive Plan.
Mary Jane Watson: Battery Logan should be given to the fort in order to achieve National Park status. Included should be a provision to allow the town to use the land in time of need. Also, the accreted land already has a comprehensive plan that to my knowledge has never been fully followed. I believe we should follow this plan and make changes as appropriate.
Question #2: Please explain your thoughts on the current zoning ordinances. Specifically address how you feel about building size and scale, lot size, setbacks, and the clarity of the ordinances as they are now written. If you are dissatisfied, what changes do you want to see made?
Jane Ellen Herron: The Island has seen an explosion of very large homes. Despite careful work to curb this tendency, there were loopholes. Our boards and commissions are doing their best to make sure the ordinances are enforced. One thing that must be considered is the phrase “neighborhood compatibility” when new housing is proposed.
Tim Holbrook: I am concerned that positive recommendations of the Planning Commission have failed approval of Town Council. And, I would also prefer that the Design and Review Board would be more cautious in granting variances of an additional 25% of sq. footage which is often allowing structures that are incompatible with the neighborhood.
Charles “Buddy” Howle: I support the over-all intent of the zoning ordinances. We have lost a lot of open space because of the mass and scale of recent construction (3-5 years). The ordinances that deal with lot size and set backs seem to work as long as the boards take into account neighborhood compatibility. Council is constantly reviewing these ordinances with the help of our boards, commissions, and town attorneys. The ordinances are very complicated. This arises from the legal pressures our citizens create as they try to maximize their real estate investments. I feel like this situation will be a fact of life as long as real estate values are as high as they are.
Jerry Kaynard: The current zoning ordinance was adopted in 2005 after about two years or more of public meetings to discuss major changes proposed by the town-hired expert consultant, Connie Cooper, at a cost of some $90,000.00. I participated in these meetings and I supported the new limitations on size and scale of residential and commercial structures. I do feel that the strict “subdivision” approach of the revised zoning ordinance in requiring uniform “streetscapes” on lots is too restrictive and will produce uniformity at the expense of creativity and diversity. We also created a new Design Review Board and new historic preservation regulations. These new regulatory procedures place a heavier burden on residents who want to build new homes or alter existing structures. I am concerned that the Town does not have sufficient personnel to meet the needs of all these additional regulatory requirements. I am concerned that the procedures are slow and financially burdensome to applicants. I do support limitations on the size and scale of new construction. Town Council should proceed with caution in adopting more regulatory restrictions until we can determine the impact of the existing zoning laws .
Larry Middaugh: The current Zoning Ordinances are an attempt to avoid development that would negatively impact the majority of the Sullivan’s Island citizens. Although any law or regulation restricts an individual, ordinances are aimed at providing a framework satisfactory to most its citizens. I am very happy with the way the ordinances were developed with ample opportunity for input from all citizens. The current ordinances are not perfect from either a wording or conceptual standpoint; however, they contribute to preventing another IOP. I consider the ordinances to be a work in progress that require adjustments to fill loopholes and deal with previously unconsidered issues. I am primarily interested in the impact a structure has on neighborhoods, particularly adjacent neighbors. From my perspective, set-backs, lot coverage, and house size are particularly important. The DRB & BZA can grant variances to these regulations, but I believe such variances should be used very sparingly. Building size established by ordinance, a maximum of 4,078 sq ft for a half acre lot, is reasonable. However, we need to re-examine the ordinance that allows the DRB to increase house size by as much as 25% (to 5098 sq ft) based on design considerations. This has lead to some excessively large houses that do not meet the test of neighborhood compatibility. An example is the house being built on the marsh at Station 22.
Pat Votava: Concerning zoning ordinances and building size and scale, I believe neighborhood compatibility is key. As vice chair of the Planning Commission, I can tell you that we have spent much of the past year, at the request of Council, coming up with tighter language regarding size, scale, setbacks, demolition and use of historic structures as accessory dwellings. We need to continue clarification of ordinance language and roles of the Design Review Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Setting a simple, single number for square footage may or may not keep a structure compatible with the rest of the neighborhood, but the current ordinances have allowed new houses that dwarf other houses in the neighborhood. We need to reduce house scale and clearly define and limit the exceptions the Design Review Board can grant to enlarge structures or to allow a second structure to be built on a lot.
Mary Jane Watson: The zoning ordinances have gone through major changes that included island wide input and the hiring of a professional consultant. This included the creation of a Design Review Board. As with all of our laws, they need periodic changes to them. We are blessed to have many committed residents who serve on our various boards that help maintain our great island lifestyle.
Question #3: Please detail your thoughts on historic preservation as it pertains to homes and town buildings.
Jane Ellen Herron: Homes and buildings of historic value are our treasures from the past, and they demand preservation. They give the Island a sense of what we were and what we have become. It grew up in one of the homes and lived in another (both formerly family-owned) on the list of historic Sullivan’s Island properties. Each is unique - one a single-story; the other a two and a half story dwelling. Both deserve, as do other historic structures, to live as part of the Island heritage. Perhaps the Town can offer incentives to help owners maintain the historic structures.
Tim Holbrook: We have seen in the last few years the disappearance of many historic homes and allowances given to build much larger primary structures on the lot, which in many cases is counterproductive the intention of historic preservation.
Charles “Buddy” Howle: Historic preservation of smaller homes has been a struggle. I am in favor of saving these structures, but not when we become over crowded by second homes that do not fit the mass and scale of the neighborhood. More work needs to be done in this area. I support the preservation of normal size single family structures as well as town buildings.
Jerry Kaynard: I have long been an advocate for historic preservation. I am now serving as president of the French Quarter Neighborhood Association in downtown Charleston where my office has been located for 35 years. The French Quarter includes the Dock Street Theater, City Hall and large portions of the old walled city. The French Quarter association works to preserve historic buildings, residential uses, neighborhood values and promotes “livability” issues. I have personally restored an historic building for residential use on Queen Street which was the plant site for the second oldest electric utility company in this country in the 1880s. I believe that town regulation of historic structures should encourage preservation with respect for the rights of owners. Our current ordinance is our initial effort at historic preservation and we do need to learn from the response in our community so that the regulations serve our objective. Our Design Review Board has reported that some historic structures will be lost due to limitations in the existing zoning ordinance, which has no flexibility in its application. We may need more work on this historic preservation provision so that all historic structures worthy of preservation can be protected, regardless of size. I do believe that owners should be encouraged to promote historic preservation with benefits, rather than with penalties.
Larry Middaugh: Historic Preservation is important from at least two perspectives. We live on an island with a rich history which is reflected in our homes and town buildings. I am in favor of current Town Ordinances that prevent demolition of historic homes and require that additions and new homes be compatible with the neighborhood and streetscape. I am also in favor of the National Historic District designation being sought by Town Council. My understanding is that this designation provides benefits for owners of historic homes such as tax deductions for exterior maintenance and relief from some flood zone requirements.
Pat Votava: I think it is great that we do appreciate the historic nature of our Island and have established overlay districts and procedures for preserving what we can. After review by Planning Commission, Council recently established a 50-year benchmark to assure that Design Review Board reviews potentially historic structures before they are demolished or altered. To make sure this process happens in a timely manner that would not be unduly restrictive to property owners, Planning Commission also recommended that Design Review Board make the final decision within 62 days of any application filed.
Mary Jane Watson: The preservation of historic structures and the history of the Island are very important. Just because a structure is old, does not necessarily mean that it adds to the historic character of the island. I believe that there should be an overall plan for the island that allows the DRB and homeowners some discretion to make decisions on a case per case basis.
Question #4: What, if any, do you see as the positive and negative impact of the growth of the business district on Island life? Please detail how you envision the future of this area as it pertains to the businesses, additional growth, and to the islanders who live in this neighborhood close by.
Jane Ellen Herron: The impact will be great. Development in the business district, as small and compact as it is, will most directly effect the residents in the surrounding area. Their lifestyle and safety deserve uppermost consideration. Increasing traffic and activity will impact the park area. The Parks Foundation has worked diligently to make the park welcoming for families and visitors. Will it be as inviting with increased hustle and bustle of businesses? The long ago Council, which decided to split-zone the lots in the commercial district, perhaps did not realize the potential for change. Now faced with the reality of development, there must be a careful plan to make building as least obtrusive as possible.
Tim Holbrook: With the possible addition of 30,000 square feet of commercial district buildings(the size of a WalMart). we must aggressively pursue a strategy to minimize density, as well as solve the parking and noise problems so that the business district does not adversely affect the livability of the surrounding residential neighborhood. It is widely known that building capacity is exceeded in some of the bars on weekends and now we are seeing larger numbers of bar patrons outdoors. With proper enforcement, many of the noise and parking problems could be alleviated.
Charles “Buddy” Howle: The growth of the business district has given us a diverse daytime district dominated by restaurants and bars at night and on the weekends. The bars and restaurants give us great places to dine and socialize, but the crowds and the parking are a problem. I hope that our commercial district will remain as it is with better enforcement of current laws. We have a citizens group working on a comprehensive approach to the problems in our commercial district. We must protect the quality of life in all our neighborhoods.
Jerry Kaynard: The business district was limited by our zoning laws to a three-block area on Middle Street many years ago. This was a good decision. Our island is committed to single family residential homes. Livability issues for our residents are and should be our top priority. Our zoning laws allow a small, limited commercial area which serves the needs of our residents and which must respect the residential character of our island. Noise, garbage disposal, traffic congestion and customer parking are manageable issues which can be handled with better policing and enforcement of existing laws and by full cooperation by business operators with respect for the needs of residential neighbors.
We do want healthy businesses in the limited commercial district, like Primetime Fitness. We are not like Market Street downtown, nor like Folly Beach. I have served on a Citizens Committee composed of island residents who live near the commercial district and business operators who are discussing how to improve livability on the island, improve the commercial district and address the concerns of residents. Progress is being made through this dialogue with the recent approval by town council of a parking area by the Fire Department for business employee parking to help relieve parking congestion on and near Middle Street. Noise issues are being addressed. Enforcement issues are being discussed. I believe we have manageable problems that can be solved with everyone’s participation seeking solutions with mutual respect for all interests.
But this is not enough. Town Council should develop and adopt a comprehensive plan for the future uses in the commercial district and focus on our island’s needs. Both the Sullivan’s Island Planning and Zoning Commission and the Citizens Committee, on which I serve, have asked Town Council to develop a comprehensive plan for the commercial district. As in the past, a mix of residential and commercial uses can co-exist in this limited commercial area. I support a small, healthy commercial district serving the needs of our residents with respect for the needs of its residential neighbors.
Larry Middaugh: I am in favor of Sullivan’s Island being a residential community. The commercial district should serve residents rather than tourists. I am definitely in favor of no further expansion of the commercial district. The several restaurants and bars in the commercial district provide us with good things to eat and drink, as well as some fun on special occasions. However, the increased development of this district over the years has produced problems of traffic, parking and associated noise. In particular, residents are experiencing problems with noise in the wee hours of the morning associated with parking on residential streets near the commercial district. Possible approaches to alleviate this problem include: 1) stricter enforcement of noise regulation via foot or bike police patrols; 2) parking restrictions; 3) perhaps have parking lots in the commercial district with entrance and exit onto Middle Street; and 4) possibly consider earlier closing hours.
Pat Votava: Growth of the business district has already impacted our quality of life, including traffic, parking, noise – problems of crowd control, in general. In keeping with the sentiment the public expressed during the planning process with the Cooper group, the commercial district should reflect the residential and family nature of the Island, existing primarily for the enjoyment of residents. Residential taxes contribute far more to the Town budget than do revenues from commercial operations. We don’t need a Bourbon Street on Sullivan’s Island. A comprehensive plan is sorely needed to address issues concerning the commercial district.
Mary Jane Watson: The town has extensively reviewed and modified the ordinances over the past three years, including extensive public comment and review by the Planning Commission. Although progress has been made a comprehensive plan will only aid the residents. I believe the development of this plan will help all island residents, including those that live closest to the commercial district.
Question #5: Should the Town purchase the property behind Town Hall (1602 Thompson St.)? If you think the Town should purchase this property, how do you think it should be paid for? How do you think this property should be used?
Jane Ellen Herron: Yes. Purchase of the 1602 Thompson Avenue property would be a smart move. The structure could be a multi-purpose one – Town offices, court sessions, meeting rooms, storage. The present Town Hall building could be used for recreation ventures. How to pay for the property if we can’t come to an agreement with the State? Answer – sell a Town owned property.
Tim Holbrook: I appreciate the efforts of Council to keep 1602 Thompson off the auction block until a plan can be developed to purchase it from the State. I am not convinced that such a beautiful location should be used as a warehouse for the Town, especially at the appraised value of 3.5 million dollars.
Charles “Buddy” Howle: I do not think the town should purchase 1602 Thompson for market value. We should be given this property by the state. If we obtain this property, I think it could be used as a town meeting hall or social hall.
Jerry Kaynard: The Town purchase of 1602 Thompson Avenue (state property behind Town Hall) for an estimated $3,000,000 cannot be justified. Existing town offices are vulnerable to flooding and storms and could be better located on the island. Expanding town operations at the current location should be studied as part of a review of all town facilities and needs. However, if the state property can be acquired at a low cost or as a gift, then we should pursue its acquisition and then study all needs of the town prior to spending large sums to renovate this building.
Larry Middaugh: Of course it would be nice to have this property if was deeded to the town by the State of South Carolina as was anticipated. However, the state decided to sell the property at an estimated value of 2.3 to 3.0 million. The decision regarding purchase of this property should be based on 1) detailed information about town government space needs (type, sq footage, etc); 2) alternative space options; 3) amount and source of funding for each option. From what I’ve heard, the primary space needs of the town are for storage. If our main need is storage space, the estimated 2.3 to 3 million real estate cost, plus the renovation costs are far too much to justify its purchase. I would need more information about potential sources of funds to purchase the property and do the necessary renovations. I’ve heard that the purchase and renovations costs of 1602 Thompson might necessitate selling some of the town-owned lots. I am not in favor of selling any town land to purchase this property and would favor exploring less expensive alternatives to meet the town’s space needs.
Pat Votava: The property behind town hall is beautifully situated but dilapidated at present and actually an historic structure, limiting what we might do with it. Depending on negotiation with the State, something might work out to everyone’s advantage, although I would not favor selling Town-owned lots to finance such a project.
Mary Jane Watson: The Town should be the owner of this property. In an ideal world the State would give it to the town, as the Federal Government did when the military left. Once the property is acquired, an island committee should be formed to determine its best use. |
