Don't waste greenbelt funds

Since its approval by the voters in 2004, the Charleston County greenbelt initiative has preserved thousands of acres at a modest cost, primarily by buying conservation easements. But recent expensive park purchases have drained funds for future conservation efforts. County Council should concentrate on fulfilling the stated goals of the rural greenbelt program.

On Tuesday, council gave initial approval to the purchase of a 7.2-acre park along the Stono River for the town of Hollywood at a cost of $4.8 million. Unfortunately the land would be purchased with money set aside for rural land protection.

It's the second time this year that the council, on a 5-4 vote, has agreed to use substantial rural greenbelt funds to buy park land for small towns. In May, council bought 292 acres for a park in Awendaw at a cost of $5.2 million. Meanwhile, the rural greenbelt fund has dwindled from $66 million to $25.6 million since its creation.

Previously, most of that money had been spent as the public might have anticipated when they endorsed the local option sales tax to fund the greenbelt program. The purchase of conservation easements, for example, has protected 11,156 acres in perpetuity, at an average cost of $1,577 an acre. Several easements were included in council's recent round of purchases.

The county also has purchased 2,721 acres of rural property outright, primarily for green space preservation. That land cost $7,653 per acre.

Compare that with the $667,000 per acre cost of the Hollywood park. In September, the county's appointed Greenbelt Bank Board recommended buying the land for no more than $3 million. Despite the objections from some council members, the majority of council voted to pay the higher price, recommended by the town of Hollywood. Well, it's only tax money.

Maybe the property in Hollywood is a great place for a park. But buying park land isn't a primary goal of the rural greenbelt program -- and certainly not at that expense. The Charleston County Park and Recreation Commission was given the responsibility for park acquisition with its share of greenbelt revenue.

The rural greenbelt program was designed primarily to preserve green space, natural habitat and the county's "heritage" landscape, plus create a barrier to urban sprawl. That can be done most effectively through the purchase of conservation easements by which landowners put restrictions on the development of their property that are effective in perpetuity.

As Councilman Dickie Schweers observes, "Easements are the only way we can make a substantial impact." In some cases, the county has preserved "property worth $10,000 an acre for less than $1,000 an acre."

Mr. Schweers has been joined by council members Colleen Condon, Joe McKeown and Paul Thurmond in opposing the costly acquisitions.

The five council members who voted for those pricey park purchases should revisit the goals of the rural greenbelt program, which were subject to extensive public scrutiny before their adoption.

A total of $25.6 million remains in the rural greenbelt coffers. It should be used frugally to meet the program's important public priorities.