Study warns against slowing growth
Dorchester County needs certain level of development, according to report
SUMMERVILLE — Dorchester County's roads, schools and services are strained by rapid growth, but a new study warns that slowing development too much could cause problems of its own.
The study on the cost of growth, which will be released next week, says the county can't afford to let developers keep building more houses without a new county development plan, but that it should be cautious about putting on the brakes.
What's next
The results of a study on the cost of growth and development in Dorchester County will be presented at 3 p.m. Friday in County Council chambers at Main Street in Summerville. Officials will hold public hearings before acting on any recommendations.
"Local officials should be wary of merely assuming that residential growth will provide the revenue needed to maintain service levels without increasing tax rates," according to a draft copy of the report obtained by The Post and Courier.
Charles Taylor of The Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs at Clemson University and William Molnar of the Clemson Institute for Economic and Community Development did the $42,000 study. Dorchester County, the town of Summerville and the county's two school districts paid for it.
Officials have been reviewing a draft version. They will use the final report to decide how and where to control growth.
Dorchester County's population swelled by 23 percent between 2000 and 2006, according to the report. The growth spurt — most of it in and around Summerville — has sparked complaints of overcrowded roads and schools, and residents have been pressuring officials to come up with a plan to address the problem. But the report contains a warning against slowing down growth too much.
"Although limiting growth might be a potentially viable alternative for some local governments, it will actually worsen the fiscal outcome for others," the report says. "It seems unlikely that limiting development will provide a solution that is acceptable to the community as a whole."
For instance, the report notes that Dorchester County needs a certain level of growth to pay off debt for a sewer system expansion. The town of Summerville might also benefit from some more growth to help pay for several new fire stations, the report says.
Rather than limiting development, the report recommends that the county consider impact fees on new houses, as Summerville has done. The report also says the county should try to get developers to agree to help build new schools.
County Council Chairman Larry Hargett said he found the report helpful and agrees with the warning against limiting growth too much. He's been fighting a proposal to require developers to demonstrate that roads and schools are adequate before the county could approve a new development.
"We've got to have some growth," Hargett said. "If we don't, we're going to have to be forced to raise taxes."
The county is considering impact fees on new houses, as the study recommends, he said. But Hargett said he could not envision asking developers to pay for new schools other than by donating land.
Summerville Town Councilman Howard Bridgman said he found the study disappointing.
"It didn't tell us as much as I had hoped," he said.
Bridgman said he didn't like the implication that the way to pay for new fire stations was to approve more developments.
"I don't think that's a good justification," he said. "It just points out another problem with the way things have been done in the past."
The report also raised red flags for County Councilman Jamie Feltner, who has been pushing for the adequate-facilities ordinance that Hargett opposes. Feltner noted that the report assumes the county will finish its road projects with $238 million from the state, when it's not certain the General Assembly will approve any money.
"You don't plan for what you haven't received yet," Feltner said.
The report also warns that even with the state money, residents could end up paying for more road projects to relieve traffic congestion.
But schools will be the real problem. Even if Dorchester School District 2 adds just 300 new students each year for the next 20 years, residents will have to come up with more than $90 million to build new schools, the report estimates.
School officials have been talking about asking voters to approve $161 million for schools in a November referendum. That figure includes renovating some overcrowded existing schools.
It also assumes a higher growth rate. The district has been gaining about 900 new students a year for the past five years and has gained another 900 so far this year, Public Information Officer Pat Raynor said.
The report estimates that Dorchester School District 4, which includes the more rural areas of the county west of Summerville, will gain about 33 students each year over the next 20 years. If that's the case, those residents would have to come up with about $8 million for new schools and staff, the report estimates.
Reach Dave Munday at 745-5862 or dmunday@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
ginj (anonymous) says...
"Dorchester County, the town of Summerville and the county's two school districts paid for it." Wrong, the PEOPLE of Dorchester County and Summerville paid for the study with their hard earned tax dollars.
"We've got to have some growth," Hargett said. "If we don't, we're going to have to be forced to raise taxes." It always seem to boil down to finding any reason they can to raise taxes. Hey Larry, don't you remember raising the millage on the property taxes as soon as the property tax legislation passed. Not to mention the one cent raise sales tax to pay for road construction.
My income doesn't increase as much as the County's need for more money. It only took them 30 years to pave the road in front of my home.
February 2, 2008 at 2:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Native_Ink (anonymous) says...
What these articles never mention is that Dorchester Co. has already approved thousands of homes that have yet to be built. It seems the county could rely on these homes for tax revenue many, many years without having to approve any more.
February 2, 2008 at 6:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
The fact is that parasites never understand the engine of creation and view those who do create wealth with suspicion. Developers create WEALTH by bringing into existence that which did not exist before. Those who want to limit growth are exhibiting a primitive emotion--fear. They never acceptably explain how they can justify denying others what they already have.
What else explains the parasite's determination to make developers "pay" for so many things that logically have nothing to do with creating wealth? The answer is that the parasite doesn't really create anything of real value and therefore has to take from the creators of wealth in order to survive.
This report essentially told the parasites I am referring to (politicians and their servants--public employees, along with some misguided citizens) how wrong they are. Since the parasite's problems include the unfortunate curse of an EGOCENTRIC intelligence, many of them will "fight" instead of assimilating this information into their minds correctly.
February 2, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
ARCHDUDE IS RIGHT IT IS ALWAYS AN AFTER THOUGHT AS TO AFTER THE BUILDING STOPS WHERE DO WE SEND THE KIDS TO SCHOOL, HOW DO WE GET ALL THIS TRAFFIC MOVING, ETC, ETC...
Look at what else you get from over developement, primarily commercial, look at all the empty re-tail space. There are some huge buildings empty and we allow more to be built while these fall down. I'm not for stopping someone from doing what they want with their property but somethings gotta give. We don't need a building on every corner.
February 2, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lexylady (anonymous) says...
Harpo, you are brilliant!!
February 2, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JohnS (anonymous) says...
The study must have been done by a out of state developer. The developer comes in slaps up some cookie cutter houses and leaves the area taking his money with him. The result is traffic being dumped out on the highway. Children having to go to school with packed classrooms. The quality of life for the folks living here decreases.
Most of these houses put up in the last couple of years were put up with all Latino crews. If DC does the right thing and checks the legal status of these folks the problem of too fast growth will take care of itself.
February 2, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
queen1 (anonymous) says...
It is good to know I am not alone in wanting decreased growth (ok, no more growth) in Dorchester county. I used to enjoy deer and numerous birds around my home, now all I have is cars and noise. And thanks to the idiots of N. Charleston I will soon have a 16 pump gas station nearby to completely block the night sky and add even more noise, traffic and decreased fresh air due to loss of forest!!
February 2, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Zod (anonymous) says...
postman01 is so WRONG again. The first poster in the comment section is a fine example of how wrong.
ginj's complaint was that it took 30 years for the county to pave the road in front of his house. Here is the news for you ginj:
It has always been incumbent upon a developer to pave roads. Before there was a road to your house it was open land. Nothing was there. Your road was plowed by a developer. It wasn't plowed by the government. The government did not tell you to move there. So you paid taxes for thirty years. FOR THIRTY YEARS, the benefit you saw was the repaving of your road with gravel rock. The silt from your gravel rock kept running into the ditch that kept your road above grade. You and your residence have been a BURDEN on the taxpayer for 30 years.
So the government finally paved your road. They finally paved your road because the road will last 20-25 years. The government has made the original investment that YOU nor YOUR DEVELOPER were willing to invest. That money came from somewhere. More than likely, it came from a tax increase or the accumulation of taxes from ALL the other taxpayers and you. You shared your origninal burden with us. Now you come here and complain about the fact that you did not receive something for free?
This is how it's done. A developer pays for the pavement. A developer pays for the UNDERGROUND utilities. The land purchaser pays the extra cost for the added value. The government collects taxes to MAINTAIN these items which make your home valuable.
I don't want to here anymore about your unpaved road. I'd actually like a little thanks for sharing the burden that you obviously would not carry alone.
February 2, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Zod (anonymous) says...
queen1, take a ride down highway 78 to Dorchester, SC. Make a right over the railroad tracks at first opportunity within the town limits. You are looking for a street named "Wire Road". Ride down that street. It's about 10 miles of paved road. Really, it leads to nowhere. It leads to another artery through Dorchester county. But let us concentrate on that particular street as currently there is no growth there.
The road was paved long ago. The original investment in the pavement came from somewhere. Maybe it was tax collection but most assuredly it probably was not. It was probably just a paved road advanced by the county administrator as a favor long ago. In other words, it was debt. People moved onto that road. They pay taxes. But this is 10 miles (or more) of road for a relative few people. I can't quote the exact cost per mile for pavement but this much I can assure the few people that live on that road have not paid for the cost of repavement AND every other service provided by the county for the few residents. The cost of police cars, fuel, and maintenance ALONE have taken a large chunk of their tax paid as the area is remote.
Now imagine that this particular area never grows. Nobody ever moves into the area. Their tax has been kept relatively low because they are conservative people. The county government has always been conservative when it comes to the collection of taxes. No growth? No growth means no new road. No growth means no new police car. No growth means no new fire truck. No growth means no new school. No growth means no new courthouse. No growth means no new jail. The county will only have the money to maintain EXISTING utilities and facilities. One day someone will have to pay for new facilities. Facilities and upgrades do come from somewhere. In the end it all comes down to one of two choices: Grow or raise taxes. The choice is yours each election cycle. Have you ever heard of someone being elected in Dorchester County on the platform of raising taxes?
February 2, 2008 at 7:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com 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 "report abuse" 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.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.