Harmony Hall purchase withstands new scrutiny
PRC priorities
Charleston County Park and Recreation Commission's official list of priorities for land acquisition raised more questions Tuesday about the Harmony Hall purchase. As several Charleston County Council members noted, acquiring property in the western part of the county is near the bottom of the PRC's priority list. The PRC's list of "acreage needs" is:
Priority 1:
--East Cooper, 1,380 acres
--West Ashley, 1,240 acres
--North Charleston, 1,104 acres
--Boat landings
--Trails
Priority 2:
--Charleston, 630 acres
--James Island, 428 acres
--Beach access
--Historic sites
Priority 3:
--West county, 270 acres
--East county, 170 acres.
The Charleston County Park and Recreation Commission's controversial $10 million purchase of the Harmony Hall tract in Meggett stood up to fresh scrutiny Tuesday.
If just one of the five county councilmen who voted for the PRC purchase July 24 had changed his mind, a new vote could have been held on the deal, but opponents were unable to sway supporters.
The discussion was partially held behind closed doors with PRC officials and board members, which Council Chairman Tim Scott said was appropriate because the issue involved contractual and legal matters. Some PRC commissioners have expressed a fear of being sued if the deal were to fall through, now that the commission has agreed to buy the land.
Opponents have criticized the location of the land, the price and the fact that the current owners, Susan and Peter Stanley, bought nearly 600 acres of land in February for $9.6 million, then sold 420 of those acres to the PRC for $10 million in July.
The facts that the PRC started negotiating the deal with the current owners months before they closed on the land, that there was no public discussion of the deal before the PRC voted to buy the land, and that state Rep. Chip Limehouse, R-Charleston, was one of the listing agents also raised some eyebrows.
On Tuesday, council members Dickie Schweers and Colleen Condon pointed out that according to the PRC's own list of priorities for land acquisition, buying land near Meggett was supposedly one of the commission's lowest priorities.
"You have stated goals and you don't seem to be following them," said Condon, who criticized the PRC for not pursuing land east of the Cooper River.
Kevin Hollinshead, chairman of the PRC, said most land in and around Mount Pleasant is too expensive, and said officials there haven't proposed any specific purchases to the commission.
PRC Executive Director Tom O'Rourke displayed a map of county "day park" locations to show there's a need for land near Meggett. The map counted the Mullet Hall Equestrian Center on Johns Island, which was designed for people who own horses, as a "day park," but did not list the 654-acre Caw Caw Interpretive Center in Ravenel.
The 420-acre Harmony Hall property has repeatedly been described by supporters as having nearly two miles of waterfront acreage, but O'Rourke told County Council that the tail end of a tidal creek is the only waterfront there. He said the property is unsuitable for a boat landing but would be wonderful for crabbing and fishing.
"A lot of it is marsh," said a disappointed Councilman Curtis Inabinett. "If I'm hearing accurately, even if you develop that park, water access and water recreation will be limited."
Councilman Joe McKeown, who had voted against the Harmony Hall deal, asked Inabinett, who had supported it, if Inabinett would call for a new vote, but Inabinett declined.
The purchase will be financed from $36 million the PRC will receive from the voter-approved half-percent sales tax for green space and road projects.
Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier 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 postandcourier.com. 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 Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 8 comment(s)
Posted by BillyTheKid32 on August 8, 2007 at 1:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We ended up whit a lot, money will be spent like it is nothing but when you end up with the land in the end ya did a good job.
Is anyone watching JR?
Posted by BillyTheKid32 on August 8, 2007 at 1:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All they have to do is stop. There is nothing that has to happen except problems for me, the tax payer. If there is a fine involved for not finishing the deal then it is a bad deal. I don't care how much time you had spent on the thing, if it stinks, it stinks.
Posted by BillyTheKid32 on August 8, 2007 at 1:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry for the first post, starting to learn.
Posted by FiddlerCrab on August 8, 2007 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The proper use of resources by the Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission. Sometimes forethought for the good of the people of Charleston County may take a hit up front but in the long run everyone will realize the need for this park in this location. It is like a chess game where you have to think multiple moves ahead and not concentrate only on the here and now.
Posted by Edwin435 on August 8, 2007 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So the land company bought the whole 600 acres for 9 million and sold Charleston County 420 acres for 10 million with alot of the acreage marshland. Emmm anyone see anything wrong with that? Charleston County just paid for all the land and this developer will be able to build houses on land that we essentially paid for... And they entered into the agreement to buy the land before the developer purchased it as well as zero discussion with the public. NICE !
Posted by KingStreetSinger on August 8, 2007 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Now that this is all said and done, I want to know why the P&C was so against this deal. The "controversy" over this whole thing started with an article about a FOIA request that was denied. Anyone who can read will note the Freedom of Information Act contains a section entitled "matters exempt from disclosure" which includes a line item for "Documents of and documents incidental to proposed contractual arrangements and documents of and documents incidental to proposed sales or purchases of property." When that didn't rile enough feathers, the P&C tried to find some people that were against the deal, and managed to dig up Cheryl Woods-Flowers, who provided a quote for the second article. I don't want to denigrate her service to the community, but she has little credibility to argue that we should be spending more money to provide parks in Mt. P. when all of the land in that town was paved on her watch. After that, the P&C kept pressing the council members until it made some feel like they were not serving their constituents. There were a couple of council members who were always against this deal, thank you for assrting your opinion. The ones in favor of the deal, thank you for voting your conscience and sticking to your votes under the paper's pressure. To the others, form an opinion based on the facts. Ignore rumor, innuendo, and outside pressure from those with their own agendas. That will serve your constituents.
Posted by FiddlerCrab on August 8, 2007 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This was a turf war waged by Mt. Pleasant, exacerbated by the P&C, against a exquisite tract of property that is planned to serve all of the citizens of Charleston County as a regional park. With the rate of growth in the West Ashley Area the need for this will become more and more apparent as this property is built out to completion to serve the citizens and our visitors. Judge this property by its merits and realize you have to plan ahead and not just for the present. Kudos to KingStreetSinger!
Posted by SmoothSailing on August 8, 2007 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The time is now for a focus change. Look to the future for our new park. Ask about the benefits for our children and grandchildren. What are the assets and plans as determined so far? Quit focusing on the need for confidentiality in contractual matters, monetary negotiations, what one entity makes or does not make, etc.. Rejoice instead that our community is rich in resources to offer our people and thank those involved in this who have done a lot of hard work for your benefit to provide this to you and your children on a perpetual basis. Realize this land could have been a new housing development instead.