Meeting on extension of I-526 elicits variety of strong viewsBy Diane Knich (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Friday, November 21, 2008
Finishing the Mark Clark Expressway could harm the fragile environment and ruin the largely rural character of Johns Island, according to some residents attending a meeting Thursday on alternative routes for the project. Others at the S.C. Department of Transportation's final meeting at St. Johns High School on project alternatives said traffic is horrendous and something must be done to make it flow more smoothly. Mary Alice Keller, a Johns Island resident, said she's against building the road and in favor of smaller changes, such as adding turn lanes to busy intersections. To comment:For more information, or to submit comments, go to scdot.org/I526 or call 1-888-623-4526. Comments can be submitted through Jan. 9. Johns Island traffic is bad at rush hour, she said. "But you don't build a cathedral for Easter. And you don't build roads because you think you will use them for one or two things." She moved to Johns Island from Atlanta, where every day she had to make a four-mile drive that took 45 minutes. She doesn't want to return to that kind of life, so she wants Johns Island to keep its rural character. Tricia Hiers, who lives near the intersection of Maybank Highway and River Road, said alternatives that don't include completing I-526 are simply "not real-world." "If you want to keep Johns Island rural," she said, "you won't have high-paying jobs on the island." Without those jobs, most people will have to leave the island during the day to go to work. And they need a convenient way to get on and off of it, she said. More than a hundred people attended the meeting to learn more about 17 possible routes for the highway and five alternatives to improve traffic without building the road. The State Infrastructure Bank has agreed to fund the $420 million I-526 completion project and has awarded Charleston County $99 million. Carol Lingard, a James Island resident, came to the meeting for very personal reasons. Her home sits in the path of one of the proposed routes, and she's afraid of losing her property. "It's my retirement home," she said. "I have no place else to go." Lingard said she's worried because she hears much more concern expressed for wetlands, trees and parks than for people's homes. James Temple, of Headquarters Island, said he thinks there are far too many alternatives. He thinks the many options will divide people and allow the SCDOT to step in and proceed with its preferred alternative. Reach Diane Knich at 937-5491 or dknich@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools
|
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net 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 charleston.net. 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 website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 7 comment(s)
|
Posted by eatmorecollards on November 21, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought the I-526 loop was a done deal and was just waiting on funding for completion. The need for it was realized years ago, before we even had the growth we are experiencing today. Looks to me like just a bunch of people from off, who thought they had moved to a quaint little town by the sea, want to preserve that image.
Posted by postman01 on November 21, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While I consider opposition to I-526 ignorant and pointless, LYING and/or misinformation is not OK. The claim that the environment will be "damaged" falls into this category. For those who have not thought this through, the majority of Interstate mileage is WAY OUT in the country. Yet trees, birds, etc not only flourish on rural portions of our Interstates, one can see an extremely healthy enviroment from them, ranging from incredible mountain vistas complete with lush vegetation to citrus groves in Florida to farms of all kinds and more. So those making the environmental argument are either IGNORANT or they are LYING (totally unacceptable).
As for John's Island "rural" character, that argument is specious as well. Their is no "right" for any location in this country to have a certain kind of "character", which is subjective anyway. People come first and the second the character argument does real harm to people financially, logistically, or compromises PROPERTY RIGHTS it too has to be discarded. Like so many areas where some people have become grossly misguided, it is IRRATIONAL to expect government to have the total say over John's Island's character. It is the cumulative decisions of thousands or even tens of thousands of people regarding where they want to live, work, or PROVIDE JOBS that will decide John Island's character, with the government being dragged along kicking and screaming in some respects to satisfy insecure, control-freak constituents. Especially in the economy as it is, opposing anything that creates jobs and PAYS TAXES will be very tough sledding.
Posted by mkris on November 21, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course there is a "right" to whatever development the ccommunity agrees. Every owner on John's Island bought property knowing or they should have known that the property is subject to zoning. There is no "right" to subdivide property or develop that property, except as the zoning allows.
Posted by onedeep on November 21, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@postman01
That first paragraph has to be the most ignorant thing I have ever seen anyone say in my entire life. I am actually speechless.
Posted by postman01 on November 21, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Onedeep and Mkris--one liners in response to a coherent, well articulated argument constitute an extremely poor response.
MKris, in many cases the "property owners" DID NOT KNOW when they purchased or inherited their property that SOCIALISTIC zoning controls would be imposed that are SUBJECT TO CHANGE at a later date. You need to do your homework on the "Allodial" property system that is the basis for property rights that protect all of us from governmental tyranny, including you if you own any REAL property (as opposed to personal property). You need to define exactly what you mean by "community". Inability to precisely define same means that you do not know what you are talking about. This would furthermore require understanding the concept of TITLE DEEDS, DEED RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS, and more. Are you actually knowledgable and conversant on these topics?
Onedeep, all you are indicating is that your reaction to a viewpoint that is Alien to you for some reason, even though it is factual and correct, engenders a response using perjoratives instead of DOING YOUR HOMEWORK, researching, and then recognizing the obvious. You need to REREAD what I said, since I composed it very carefully and my contention is in fact the correct assessment of a certain kind of mentality, whether you like it or not. Your problem with speechlessness proves you don't know what you're talking about, since you would be able to compose a much better response OUT OF YOUR HEAD if you do in fact possess actual and extensive empirical knowledge of this subject.
Posted by mkris on November 21, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"socialistic" please -- zoning is ALWAYS subject to change by the municipality, which is the "community". Title, deeds, covenants, restictions, easemnets have nothing to do with municipal zoning regulation and never have. They are at thier heart contractual issues between individuals.
As previously written, known or should have known. Being ignorant is not an excuse.
Posted by postman01 on November 22, 2008 at 6:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mkris, your logic is deficient. How can ANYONE know the unknowable, such as what the poltical and social environment will be in ten years EXACTLY? Contract law is extremely important and involves the VOLUNTARY conscent of the parties involved. Your argument hands parties that are not involved the right to dictate under some rubric that makes sense to them, whether it is called "zoning" or anything else. My definition of it as "socialistic" is correct, since SOCIALISM has less than complete respect for PROPERTY RIGHTS and, in its most extreme form (Communism), doesn't even allow people to own property. This is why what I attempted to explain is so important, because it prevents OPPORTUNISTS that want POWER from exploiting the ignorant, stupid, and indifferent with an EMOTIONAL appeal that doesn't stand up to highly intleiigent, facts, and logic only scrutiny. The preceding is why your argument is wrong both practically and MORALLY. How would you like it if someone suddenly minutely dictated to you and then countered your understandable protests by saying you should have known it was coming when they completely surprised you? The fact that I believe you and others like you are incapable of accepting is that Johns Island is NOT YOUR ISLAND. The idea of collective ownership is an oxymoron. John's Island belongs to those who hold TITLE to the land there and in fact you can find out who literally owns John's Island at the Charleston County Register of Mesne and Coveyance, where you will find onwership of the island is separated into THOUSANDS of different owners, both public and private and that there is no coherent "we" or "our" precisely because the various owners have not contacted each other en masse and voluntarily agreed to anything regarding the oxymoronic idea of the Island belonging to "we" or "our".