Awendaw gets OK for park funding
County Council votes 5-4 in favor of $5.26M purchase
By Jessica Johnson
Charleston County Council moved ahead Tuesday with a plan that would allow Awendaw to spend $5.26 million of greenbelt funds on a 292-acre parcel of land once slated for a 200-home development.
The council voted 5-4 to approve the purchase of the parcel known as the Jefferson tract, bordered by forest on two sides. Elliott Summey, Teddie Pryor, Henry Darby, Curtis Inabinett and Victor Rawl voted in favor. Colleen Condon, Dickie Schweers, Paul Thurmond and Joe McKeown voted against.
The Post and Courier
Last week, council's Finance Committee failed to make a clear recommendation on the purchase, voting 4-4, but Rawl, who then abstained, voted in its favor Tuesday.
"I abstained because I wanted more information," Rawl said.
Rawl looked at which greenbelt purchases were publicly accessible and which were not.
Plans for the Jefferson tract include the creation of a 50-acre lake and walking and biking trails. Rawl said he felt the creation of the park would protect the land from future development and provide public access.
The approval came with two contingencies: That it be subject to an appraisal paid for by Charleston County and that if any agency other than Awendaw managed the land, $2 million in dirt-mining profits, from the creation of the lake, be returned to the greenbelt fund. The town has asked the county Park and Recreation Commission to manage the land.
Awendaw Town Administrator Dan Martin said that it was unfair to ask the town to return any funds for dirt mining back to the fund and to get a second appraisal because the county hadn't required the same of other projects.
"It seems to be a double standard," he said.
Previous story
Saving some green: Proposed projects would protect more than 2,700 acres, published 05/12/09
Schweers was opposed to the purchase, though the tract was just miles from his home. He said he wanted the land to be protected from development.
"We can't afford to protect it at the rate it's at now," he said.
He noted that the Jefferson tract was surrounded by recreational trails and water-access points. It also is a mile down the road from a 60-acre tract owned by the Park and Recreation Commission and also purchased with greenbelt funds. That property went for $95,000 an acre for a total of $5.7 million, of which $2.85 million came from the greenbelt fund.
Greenbelt funds come from a voter-approved half-cent sales tax for transportation projects and land preservation. The goal of the $95 million fund is to protect 40,000 acres from development. Through purchases and easements, the county has met 21 percent of that goal using about 40 percent of the funds. The Jefferson tract, at $18,000 an acre, took an eighth of the money that remains.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
postman01 (anonymous) says...
This is the kind of behavior that is the reason for our economic problems. 200 new homes would have provided a lot of employment and payed a lot of taxes, including the continuous payment year after year of property taxes.
Instead, we hear vague nonsense. 5.26 million dollars has been wasted. This land will now NEVER EVER generate a cent of revenue for anyone, including the County of Charleston. This little park will be used very little. In fact, it's upkeep will cost the taxpayer money when we have far more pressing needs. Supposedly this state of affairs is permanent by design.
June 17, 2009 at 5 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
Many Americans and S Carolinians, including me, these days must make daily decisions with their purchases based on what do I need and what would I like to have. I guess this falls into the "need" category or the taxpayer is still viewed as a bottomless pit.
June 17, 2009 at 7:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
This is not a bad economic decision. First, it prevented more urban sprawl, and urban sprawl costs more in services than it provides in tax revenue. Second, the park will actually increase the value of nearby, existing property and the associated property taxes.
June 17, 2009 at 7:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Southern_Cousin (anonymous) says...
It is so rare to see a governemental body actually protect and preserve land, rather than give permission for development. Thank you Thank you Thank you - and I promise you I will use that park!
There has to be a balance of economic development and perservation. 200 ugly tract houses don't need to be built on land that is better perserved and used for recreational purposes. Put the houses somewhere else - it is not as if there is not a whole bunch of undeveloped land elsewhere in the Awendaw area.
BTW, postman, Parks and Recreation is NEVER at waste of the public's money and provides jobs that don't "uglify" Awendaw as well. You are probably a developer - sorry, I think that the development rape and pillage party is over.
June 17, 2009 at 8:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoelaces (anonymous) says...
"Rawl said he felt the creation of the park would protect the land from future development and provide public access."
How about preserving it as GREEN space and leaving it natural? Wouldn't that truly be a better protection of this land?
I have family and friends who live in Awendaw, some on Doar Rd. And I can guarantee you they do not want a park and they will not use the park. The reason people move to rural areas is to stay away from all of these PUBLIC ACCESS sites.....get a clue people!!!
June 17, 2009 at 8:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
This takes land from the tax roles, increases the cost of housing, will be used by a bare minority of the population and will be a permanent yearly cost. Government at its best.
As far as southern cousin, who thinks that park and recreation can't waste funds, you voted for Obama right? You have a fairy tale belief that government is god and Obama is the messiah and can do no wrong.
June 17, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MyMcClellanville (anonymous) says...
The Green Belt fund is supposed to purchase land in less developed areas before prices become to high for them to purchase. It's good foresight on the County's side, when the plan was enacted they didn't know the economy was going to crash, but buying in a bad economy is exactly what they should be doing because they get more bang for their buck. Like most places, all of Awendaw is for sale, their are dozens of huge tracts of land up for grabs but developers aren't jumping at them right now.
There's a big difference between a tract that CAN hold 200 homes and one that actually does. I can't see any builder actually building 200 homes in an economy like this and with absolutely no demand, so there was very little loss off the payroll. As it turns out, the downturn in the economy was the best thing that could happen for Awendaw because it's going to allow them to vote out the bad council members and get new blood in there before they have to vote on any new land developments.
Nobody in Awendaw may use this park in the beginning, but it will be preserved for the future as Awendaw inevitably grows. The park is also for the use of all, not just Awendaw residents. Look at how many James Island residents use that County park compared to everyone else. I support the purchases in Awendaw and McClellanville and hope that they utilized by all as a place for urban residents to get out into the country and enjoy.
June 17, 2009 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoelaces (anonymous) says...
MyMcClellanville...."I support the purchases in Awendaw and McClellanville and hope that they utilized by all as a place for urban residents to get out into the country and enjoy."
Great...just what people in rural areas WANT....urbanites in their rural setting.
***I do get your point. I do agree this is better than developing the site with concrete slab, vinyll siding, cookie cutters.
June 17, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
Well, citizens......
consider this....?!?!
PARKS should generate REVENUE to pay for themselves...RIGHT?
Have you heard ONE Farmer complain out WEST of his WIND Turbine destroying his FARMLAND...??
Well, these parks all over the PLACE should be a PERFECT Location for our STATE's network of South Carolina Wind Energy production to benefit EVERYONE...!!!! These 500 ft Super turbines generate enough energy to POWER 13000 or more homes....!!!!!
People WAKE UP....!!!!!! If we are going to set this land aside....IT SHOULD STILL Generate tax Revenue and be used for as many NATURAL means as possible...!!!!!
Wind is NATURAL.....!!!!!
Get on Google and EDUCATE .....Yourself !!! Don't rely on the Legislators or County Council....!!!!
Windfarms actually sustain the LAND and OPEN MARSH they are installed ON.....!!!!!!
June 17, 2009 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
No, SouthernCousin, I'm not a developer. I have a logical mind and prioritize correctly. I realize that far, far more good for many more people would be accomplished by there being 200 new homes available to live in. Housing for people is simply more important than parks. People can have their own yards and and also go for walks and bike rides in their neighborhoods.
Your confusion is typical. When someone wants to develop in the nearby parcels you mentioned, the same people will oppose reflexively for the same confused reasons.
And you have failed to address where the money comes from to buy land to do nothing with it. Zoomru makes a good try at making this seem logical BUT the same confused thinking that opposed homes for people to live in will oppose wind turbines because they will be called "unsightly".
The mentality I am describing can not be reasoned with logically. It is a defective intelligence. Thus, we arrive at the ugly truth that such people have to be steamrollered because they won't listen to reason. It's sad.
June 17, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCBorn1 (anonymous) says...
Shoelaces do you ever visit your friends and family in Awendaw on doar rd? Where do you live, and please dont say you live in the urbanite area and go out to visit in the rural area. LOL....also just because you family and friends that live there gaurantee they dont want this park developed doesnt mean much to others, its not like they make the final decision for all in Awendaw.
June 17, 2009 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
MyMcClellanville (anonymous) says...
I doubt the parks will disturb the surrounding neighbors. I spoke to the director about the McClellanville one and they said they will have a large buffer area between residences (in the case of Awendaw it looks like most of the bounding property is National Forest) and it will be a passive park (i.e. clearings with picnic benches and walking trails). So we're not talking about traffic going around the block with people puring in to the latest Charleston County waterpark. If that seemed to be the case I would never support it.
http://mymcclellanville.net/2008/01/3...
June 17, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fred_durst1 (anonymous) says...
WOW Postman01 the way you describe yourself, you must be a mental giant. I hope I can be as smart as you one day.
June 17, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AHLeland (anonymous) says...
Look at it this way: a little over $18k an acre beats the heck out of the $95k an acre the paid for the tract down the road.
June 17, 2009 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoelaces (anonymous) says...
SCBorn1....as a matter of fact we spent the weekend in Awendaw, thanks for asking. All of the folks I know who live out there left Mt. P and other growing towns to GET AWAY from the "luxuries" of things like public parks.
And I don't live in what I would call a completely urban area, unless you consider Johns Island to be urban.
There isn't curbside trash pick up in Awendaw. Who will pay to pick up the trash from the picnic areas? Will it be "pack it in, pack it out" without trash cans?
June 17, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flatpickit (anonymous) says...
We are fortunate to have a park system like we do in Charleston County. The time to set aside more parklands is now. Thank goodness some people are looking forward and seeing the benefit in using the land for a park instead of a development. "Far, far more good for many more people will be accomplished" if the land is used in this way. Our parks, WMA's, national forests, and other publicly accessible lands are treasures.
June 17, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sewee (anonymous) says...
We can not even get the water that has been promised for years out here!
June 17, 2009 at 9:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
commonsence (anonymous) says...
Congrats Council...you just made the Greenbelt Commission irrelevant. Now anyone who wants to get approval for a purchase can just go straight to Council, exert whatever influence they have and get a decision, regardless of the merits.
June 18, 2009 at 10:36 a.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.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Off campus
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Biting research
