Proposed land deals would use $5.7M
The Post and Courier
The James Island Recreation Complex would nearly double in size, with plans for tennis courts, a practice field and a dog park, under Charleston's proposal to spend its remaining greenbelt money.
The Neck Area of the Charleston peninsula also would get a new park, located on 14 acres of high ground along Austin Avenue where it could serve existing communities, such as Rosemont, as well as the planned Magnolia development.
The two land deals would together consume $5.7 million of the city's roughly $9.9 million in greenbelt funds from Charleston County's half-cent sales tax initiative.
Along with previous purchases, the city will have spent all but about half a million dollars of its allocation.
"This pretty much exhausts our greenbelt money," said Matt Compton, deputy director of the city Parks Department.
The James Island deal would use land where a residential subdivision had been proposed, and would create a green connection between the James Island Recreation Complex and the James Island Charter High School.
To make that connection, the school district previously purchased a 13-acre piece of the same development property. Charleston is now requesting nearly $1.85 million in greenbelt funds to buy the adjoining 10 acres of high ground at Harborwoods, owned by Michael Washburne.
Mayor Joe Riley said the purchase would allow the city and school district to create new ways for people to get to the Recreation Complex on foot or bicycle from the high school or from Dills Bluff Road.
In the Neck Area, the city would spend nearly $3.9 million in greenbelt money to buy a former trucking terminal owned by the Magnolia developers, with 14 acres of high ground and 14 acres of marsh.
Charleston had applied for grant money for the same James Island project in 2007, but withdrew the application in order to wait out some unspecified litigation involving the property. The Neck Area project also was proposed in 2007 but was modified as it went through the county's approval process and required fresh authorization from the city.
The city also has used greenbelt grant funds for these projects:
--$1,410,000 toward the city's plan for a 212-acre park off Bear Swamp Road in West Ashley, adjacent to the proposed Long Savannah development and the Red Top community.
--$1,309,000 for about 9 acres at 1921 Woodland Road in West Ashley for a suburban park with playing fields and possibly tennis courts.
--$430,000 to reimburse the city for its purchase of the Ellis Oaks parcel, 1.25-acre oasis of grand trees and azaleas at the entrance to a shopping center on Folly Road on James Island.
--$270,000 for the purchase of 2.9 acres of woods and wetlands at the end of a cul-de-sac in the Village Shaftesbury town home development in West Ashley. The property abuts the marsh at Longbranch Creek and is home to a Confederate earthworks listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
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 3 comment(s)
Posted by YankeeLady on October 30, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Exactly; why not leave the land for all people to enjoy? - there is a large dogpark already at the JI County Park.
Posted by Charles_Town on October 30, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with both of you, but what blows my mind is as a dog owner I am expected and required to keep my dog on my property or on a leash when not, but cat owners have no restrictions.
Posted by Palmettobreeze on October 30, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yea about the cat, when was the last time you heard about someone dying from a house cat attack. Um probably never. Dog parks are great, but just becuase someone decides they want a cute puppy does not mean that taxpayers should make that a number one thought on every park that comes along. I mean they are great but in reality there are actually a number of dog parks that are closing down across the nation becuase the parks are falling apart, grass never grows, dog attacks on each other. They seem like a great idea but you are just rewarding people who made a decision to purchase a dog in the city when that is not really fair to a lot of large dogs. Luckily a lot of dog parks are in areas where it is not feasible to use the land, ie under trees, lower lying areas etc... hopefully that is the plan.