Wal-Mart plans keep opposition, council vigilant
A Charleston City councilman said recently that council is listening to residents who oppose Wal-Mart's plans to build a supercenter on James Island.
Tim Mallard, who represents parts of James Island, said council members have received numerous letters and phone calls from residents, many of whom belong to Islanders for Responsible Expansion, a watchdog group formed specifically to oppose the supercenter.
Charleston City Council finds itself in the middle of the controversy because it must approve the sale of 3 acres of wetlands near the current Folly Road location that Wal-Mart needs for the proposed supercenter.
"The city is listening to the folks on James Island by virtue of it not coming before council," Mallard said. "The city is kind of slowing down on it because the people on James Island have shown the city that they don't want the project. (Council) has backed off on the idea."
Mallard said he has spoken with the majority of council members, who said they would go along with what the residents want.
"We need to remain ever vigilant in watching this issue," he said.
Islanders for Responsible Expansion co-founder Robin Welch agrees, citing her group's most recent concern over a March 19 public notice in The Post and Courier, which states that the discount giant had formally submitted its intent to apply for a building permit.
The notice states that the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control is accepting public comments on the issue.
"The notice scared people," Welch said, adding that group members were preparing a letter-writing campaign after its publication.
"Our position is that any expansion that encroaches (wetlands) is not OK," Welch said of his group, which formed in March after the city of Charleston Board of Zoning Appeals gave Wal-Mart permission to cut 30 grand oak trees next to its Folly Road store to make way for the supercenter.
The public notice was submitted by Wal-Mart's consultant, Robert Riggs of Newkirk Environmental Inc., according to Tara Stewart, public relations manager with Wal-Mart, and Dan Burger, director of communication and technical resources with DHEC's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.
"We're currently working with the Army Corps of Engineers to determine if this public notice placed in the paper by the applicant's consultant is timely. Newspaper notification is an application requirement, which indicates an applicant's intent to apply for a permit," Burger said.
"It's still in the review process to make sure it's administratively complete," he said.
Also, a notice has not been filed under the Army Corps' Web site, sac.usace.army.mil, regarding permitting, which is required.
Burger said there will be appropriate opportunities for the public to comment on the project at a later date.
Stewart stressed that nothing is final regarding site plans for the supercenter, and that the company is working on other ways to expand.
"We are entertaining everything we can, including a smaller footprint, smaller building," she said.
The main concern at Wal-Mart is keeping the 170 workers now working at the current store employed, she said.
There will be a public hearing with Wal-Mart representatives and the Corps of Engineers, Stewart said.
"We haven't even gotten (to public comments) yet," Stewart said. "It will be set by the Army Corps. They will set that timetable."
Burger said a permit application hasn't reached his office or public review through the Corps of Engineers.
Welch said she has been fielding phone calls and updating the group's Web site to let members know that public comments are not yet being accepted.
"The Army Corps looks at impact to wetlands; we look at it through a finer microscope to see how it fits into our larger coastal program regulations," Burger said.
Projects such as the supercenter also require certification from DHEC's Bureau of Water, which conducts impact studies on water quality, Burger said.
The public then will have 30 days to submit comments to the Army Engineers and DHEC's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management once the application is ready.
The Army Corps and DHEC both must approve Wal-Mart's permit application. Burger said even if the Army Corps of Engineers approves it, that doesn't mean DHEC will.
In the meantime, Islanders for Responsible Expansion has launched an online petition opposing the supercenter that so far has drawn 4,000 signatures. The group also has collected 1,000 handwritten signatures, Welch said.
Welch said the group will continue to monitor Wal-Mart's plans closely. Its Web site is isrex.org.
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 3 comment(s)
Posted by Henry_Horres_Jr on April 12, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
With the Amazon rain forest rapidly disappearing, it's comforting to see James Island has a few people who strive to protect several so called "grand" trees, and who could seem to care less about the creation of new jobs. Such jobs often provide employment for minorities and given the declining economy, could be a blessing for maybe 30 people. These people would need houses, cars, haircuts, groceries, and the like, and I am sure the overall economic impact would be palpable. I don't recall the quasi Town of James Island taking a part in providing jobs for anyone except perhaps through political patronage.
You can bet Councilman Joe Qualey, who seems to be opposed to creation of a Super Wal-Mart, won't be applying for any of those jobs. I believe Attorney Qualey's business interest are primarily located in the city of Charleston. And oh my gosh, who cares about people and jobs. These are TREES we're talking about.
I have yet to figure out just where the grand trees in question are located. They aren't highly visible, and at any rate Wal-Mart has offered to provide a protected wooded tract of far greater significance to mitigate the loss. And trees can be replanted.
Anyone who knows the history of James Island knows that in the early 1900's much of the island was cleared for farming, and many of the trees that exist today are less than 75 years old. Historically, trees were indiscriminately removed for farming and development, perhaps by some of the very people (or their immediate ancestors) who are so passionate about protecting the environment today. Their fortunes were built on it. Some of their homes, farm lands and even their burial plots, could easily sit on land that was once a forest or would have qualified as wetlands by today's standards. Jobs on the other hand, don't grow on trees.
Mr. Qualey is quite right, however, concerning filing in wetlands. While global warming and glacial melting may soon relegate the entire low country to a wetland, laws preventing "fill and build" development are well established, if not well enforced. Wal-Mart was obviously aware of the law when it initially developed the store site. What they offer in way of a tradeoff may be generous, but might not benefit the island at all.
Having been involved in a recent election in the Town of James Island, I am painfully aware that some laws seem to be made to be broken. But the agencies who regulate wetlands need to be careful of the precedent they might be setting if they permit there destruction for the Wal-Mart expansion. "Setting aside" does not "create" where wetlands are concerned.
Perhaps Wal-Mart could set aside 10 acres for every acre of wet lands disturbed, and plant 10 trees for every one cut down. A fairly large oak cost around $20,000, so that would be around $6,000,000 for the new trees and whatever 30 acres of land will fetch. They might also create a landscaped buffer that makes it virtually invisible from Folly Rd.
Posted by Folly29412 on April 13, 2008 at 3:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Mr Horres Jr.
First of all...I am going to attack your first paragraph. What planet do you come from where the destruction of precious wetlands is more important than 30 jobs? (and might I say...low paying jobs from Wal-mart.) And why do you think that only minorities work at Wal-mart? Also, the ecomony can rebound faster than a tree can grow.
Second paragraph...YES...They are TREES...you know, those barky, leafy things that provide us humans oxygen which apparently you must get from a canister.
Third paragraph. These grand trees are tucked deeply in the woods which explains why they are still here. Sure, Wal-mart will offer to give us a wonderful tract of land but it will probably be in some county far away from us and these trees that you speak of will be planted in another state. OH and let's not forget that it takes YEARS for a young sapling to grow into a mature tree. But of course, you will won't be here to see that.
Fourth paragraph....We do not live in the early 1900's anymore. Not many families farm here. Job's don't grow on trees? Oh how cliché. If you live on James Island, can't afford it and can't find a job..then maybe living here is not for you. I live on James Island, I found a job on James Island and I can support myself.
Fifth paragraph...You actually said something I agree with. "What they offer in the way of a tradeoff may be generous, but might not benefit the island at all" There is not "might" about it...It won't. We do not need another grocery store at the price of losing these wetlands and grand trees.
These rest of your letter is completely gibberish. 10 acres for 1 acre of wetland? Where would this 10 acres be? It wouldn't be around here... And these new trees? Same thing..not around here..no benefit to the Islanders.
One thing that really concerns me about your letter is the fact that I know of you...you are up in your 70's and sadly, your time on earth is almost done so you won't be here to see the destruction of a super center Wal-mart on our community. Seriously, if the wetlands weren't an issue, I would still be opposed to this super center because we do not need any more traffic nor do we need another grocery store.
Sincerely,
Your James Island
Neighbor
Posted by tjm71 on April 16, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not for destruction of trees, but I DO believe there is room for improvements on James Island. The J.I. lynchmobs trying to stop any progress need to think of ALL the citizens of this island and what THEY want. True, there are 4,000 signatures, but there are far more people living here.
Ok, I know someone out there is going to say "if you don't like it, leave"..that's a cop-out. I DO like J.I., but why should everyone be denied things like an improved store, or allowing the connector completion that would improve traffic.
Everyone is yelling about "we don't need another grocery store", this may be true if the ones we had were a little more up to date, clean, and had stuff. Thankfully, BiLo will be opening soon, (I'm suprised no-one protested that). What is wrong with simply making things better for everone?