State's sad record on new port facility

For years, North Charleston has provided for the tri-county's economic needs. We've hosted the airport, the Navy and the factories. But patiently, persistently and sometimes quietly, North Charleston has created for itself a different future. We have gone from an area dominated by smokestacks 30 years ago to an area that is shifting to clean, green business and bedroom communities. We have done this based on sound planning and a belief that we could rely upon the state's promises.

North Charleston's leaders were up to the challenge when the state forced upon us a new port on the south end of the Naval Base. Since declining the port wasn't an option, the city fought hard to secure state promises sufficient to permit our communities to thrive despite the port's scheduled presence. These promises included rail overpasses for three heavily used rail crossings, a dedicated access road from I-26 so as to keep all port traffic out of our communities, and an acknowledgement that "the SPA [State Ports Authority] will use rail access exclusively from the south end of the property."

These state promises, especially the bar against northern rail traffic, were relied upon locally. Hundreds of permits have been pulled for renovations of homes in the south end of the city. Redevelopment projects such as Oak Terrace Preserve, Mixon, Horizon Village have flourished. There has even been a plan developed to establish a world-class Clemson University Restoration Institute campus.

The state's promises were also relied upon by the federal government. Port construction was contingent on federal approval. In order to secure approval the state promised that the "proposed project does not include the construction of any new rail facilities on the project site, nor does it include constructing improvements to any existing rail facilities located on the remainder of the Charleston Naval Complex property. According to the SCSPA, all container cargo that enters or exits the project site by land will be carried by trucks."

Several recent events have shocked the city. First, the city received the "State Rail Plan 2008 Update" identifying three potential "Near dock intermodal sites," aka "rail yards." Two of the three sites are in the area declared off-limits by the state's written promises to the city.

Second, and more alarming, an amendment to S.351 introduced by Rep. Jim Merrill documents the state's efforts to break its promises. Therein Mr. Merrill basically proposes to "take back" land already deeded to the city and others in order to give northern rail access to a new owner, a state-owned railroad typically affiliated with the port.

North Charleston will not accept state legislators "throwing it under the bus" along with broken state promises.

Think hosting the port without protections is no big deal? Ask the residents of Daniel Island and their legislator (Rep. Merrill) to explain why the port is not sitting on thousands of waterfront acres on Daniel Island. When plans emerged years ago to build a terminal there, on land already owned by the port, the howls of protest were clearly received 120 miles away in the state capital.

Unlike Daniel Island, North Charleston isn't expecting the port to move. Frankly, if the state would just keep its promises North Charleston could deal with it. You see, North Charleston did the right thing — starting in 2002 we took the state's promises and used innovative urban planning to find a way to successfully accommodate the port. The state's promised overpasses, access road, and bar on northern rail access were critical components of that effort. The planning and promises worked. As mentioned, hundreds of permits were pulled, tens of millions of dollars invested, and families started transforming communities here.

Though Rep. Merrill's "northern access" proposal will sacrifice North Charleston's trusting communities, ironically, for several reasons, the state itself may be an even bigger loser if it proceeds:

First, the Merrill proposal squanders the state's opportunity to have a healthy port and economy. The rail access described in the rail study and pursued by Mr. Merrill appears to violate the port's federal permit. The potential for a federal stop-work order, along with the likelihood of delay while the state suffers through a North Charleston lawsuit, should cause legislators to pause. Delay is the last thing South Carolina's port can stand.

On the other hand, I guess delay might actually be an alternative solving the port's "capacity problem." Increased capacity is only needed if the port has customers. The recent pullouts and renegotiations by Maersk and others cannot be overlooked. The port has threatened that without a new terminal open shortly it would lose even more business. Lost business is one way to solve the capacity problem.

Second, while Mr. Merrill seems to believe land in North Charleston is free for the state, nothing could be further from the truth. The dirt under the tracks and proposed rail yard is valuable, and the state doesn't own it. The state will be expected to pay for every acre. The state should also expect to pay millions for the diminution of value to surrounding developments. And don't forget to consider lost revenues for the state as a whole. As mentioned, port construction will stop. Customers will drift away faster than ever, and by the time the state pays the lawsuits, its new terminal will stand as a vacant reminder of the its broken promises.

Finally, the Merrill proposal squanders this state's chance to create a comprehensive rail solution for the region. Shocking as it may sound, North Charleston agrees that appropriate rail is vital to the port and the region. So the issue for us is not having rail, the issue is doing rail "right." The Merrill proposal isn't even close.

Rail can be done "right." What would "right" look like? For starters it would come in from the south.

Even the state rail study indicates that the former Macalloy site, located south of the new port terminal, is the best location for a rail yard. Given cooperation and effort, that location can be accessed from the south and served by multiple carriers. Cooperation, planning, and imagination might yield other benefits too.

For instance, the state ought to simultaneously be discussing ways to establish commuter/light rail — something the traffic-clogged tri-county area desperately needs.

Cooperation here is possible, even if not easy. North Charleston's communities need a proper rail solution if they are to flourish. The port needs a proper rail solution if it is to effectively compete for customers. The citizens of this state need a solution, the net effect of which is to increase revenues and economic opportunity rather than destroy them.

The good news is that proper solutions exist. A hopeful sign is that one of our local developers has already been pursuing them. He created a conceptual plan which provides for southern rail access to the new port terminals and also improves rail access to existing terminals.

Though this plan was ignored by the state initially, I am hopeful that our legislators might become more willing to roll up their sleeves and work to build consensus in light of the costs described above in relation to the Merrill proposal.

What we need to move forward at this point is nothing more than a group of motivated people to come together to listen and work together. I for one am ready.

Keith Summey is mayor of North Charleston.