New park may sprout in N. Chas.
County might buy 31 acres where apartments were proposed
The Charleston County Park and Recreation Commission is considering spending more than $6 million to buy land between Dorchester Road and the Ashley River, where North Charleston officials would like to see a new county park.
The purchase would expand the county's park land holdings in North Charleston, while also eliminating a plan to build apartments on two of the three parcels involved.
Residents of the Covington Hills and Jericho on the Ashley neighborhoods have opposed the apartment plan.
If the deal goes through, the roughly 31 acres on Dorchester Road would be the most expensive land, per acre, purchased by the county park system with green space funds.
North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey and some City Council members have advocated the land purchase both to stop the apartment development and to create a new park.
"I don't know where else, in an area already so populated and developed, that we could have a park," Summey told the park commissioners Monday night.
County park commissioners were willing to consider the deal partly because the park system already owns 23 acres along the Ashley River that adjoin all three parcels. The park system has owned the riverfront land for more than a decade, without putting it to use.
Tom O'Rourke, executive director of the park system, said the deal would give the PRC a total of nearly 60 acres, including some marsh, between the Ashley River and Dorchester Road.
While tiny by county park standards, the land offers river vistas and could be a specialty park of some sort, O'Rourke said. James Island County Park is more than 600 acres, and Wannamaker Park is more than 1,000.
Summey said North Charleston is getting appraisals for the three parcels. The two where the apartment complex is proposed were offered to the city for about $3.6 million by Coastal Development II.
Summey said the neighboring, larger property is owned by the Truluck family, which agreed to let the city conduct an appraisal, but has not agreed to sell. An initial appraisal set the value of that 19-acre tract at $2.7 million.
O'Rourke noted that, while the PRC has money from the county's half-percent sales tax to buy the land, no money has been set aside to develop new park amenities.
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 onedeep on February 26, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Where exactly is this park going to be? I have no idea where those neighborhoods are, and no other reference to the location was given other than "between Dorchester and the Ashley River," which doesn't exactly narrow it down.
Posted by theronce on February 26, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would hardly call taking property off the public tax rolls and turning it into a park with expenses a good investment.
Posted by majorjohnson on February 26, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is already a 23 acre parcel owned by the parks department. While that's no wannamaker park, it would serve a far smaller community. 23 acres is a fairly large parcel for a community park already (that's over a million sq. feet). This is not about a park. It's about stopping a development that the area is zoned for. The people who live there already have theirs, and they don't want anyone else to have any. When they bought the developers were good...after they bought the same developers were greedy and evil.
Posted by icbmman on February 26, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Parks, parks, parks. It's like the dingbats who govern my hometown are obsessed with them...I think they just love the word or something. How many more county parks should the county build? Is there a demand in the market for more of them? I highly doubt it. I'd consider building more of these parks when the current ones are filled to capacity and bustling with people.
Posted by anon on February 26, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The neighborhoods they are referring to are across from Michaux Parkway near the airport.
Posted by icbmman on February 26, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Archdude, I agree that some land needs to be preserved for all citizens to enjoy, but I don't think it's right for the county to grab land and let it sit just to spite the developers. Besides, your argument is under the premise that the real estate market is hot for developers, and now that is not the case. Also, your argument for more government land grabbing ignores the fact that as developable land becomes more scarce, the value of it increases, thereby increasing property values and, as a result, property TAXES. Oh yeah, Chas will be a great place to live in...IF you can afford it. The metro area is already having that problem now.
I'm sure the CCPRC can find ways to enhance their current parks with that money including expansion of park land, modernization of facilities, and additions/enhancements to attractions and amenities.
Posted by commonsence on February 26, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First off, this is not about N. Charleston $$...it's County $$ that all County residents pay for. Second, it seems like a collossal waste of money for the small amount of acreage. Surely there is a better way to use these millions. And lastly, I have to agree that seems more about restricting development than filling a park need. Hopefully the PRC will rethink this proposal and look elsewhere.
Posted by majorjohnson on February 26, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The 23 acres they own there is undeveloped. No park, no access. To claim they need more acreage because the area needs a park is a bit disengenuous considering that the parcel they have is not a park now. As far as I can tell it's just a big woods with no park facilities, though it's certainly large enough for at least a picknic table, and even if you wanted to go to this currently county owned property there is no place to park so you can partake of it. This "need for a park" thing is a farce.