Tweet
July 1, 2008
Dear Morris Island Coalition members and supporters,
We would like to update you on the latest information related to Morris Island. The Charleston County Park & Recreation Commission (PRC) published its $105,000 study of recommendations related to future access on Morris Island. These recommendations were based upon input from the steering committee as well as the Jaeger Company, an environmental planning company that we helped choose. The study clearly stated that there is no need for a dock as currently there is access through private and commercial boats. The commercial boats are flat bottomed, and have toilets aboard. The study’s rationale is that a dock will open the interior of the island to higher levels of human traffic, which is detrimental to the ecology as well as the island’s archeological features. It will also detrimentally impact the view shed from Fort Sumter.
In a surprise move, interim property owner Bobby Ginn withdrew his option to purchase from the Trust for Public Land and rewrote it to sell the island to The City of Charleston. In doing so the new contract cut out the City of Folly Beach, the Civil War Preservation Trust, and the Charleston County Park & Recreation Commission, all of whom agreed to financially contribute to the island’s purchase, but required bona fide studies to clarify the future management of the island. It should be noted that only the groups requiring formal studies were the ones to be cut out of the deal. All were assured by the Trust for Public Land as well as by Mayor Riley that the new contract was “clean,” with no conditions.
The contract has gone through and the deed has been signed. We may rest easier knowing that Morris Island will never again be threatened with residential development. We are concerned, however, that the deed does indeed contain preconditions. In essence, the deed gives Ginn company “economic rights” to the island for 90 years and allows Ginn the right to sue the City of Charleston should he perceive that his economic rights are limited. These options give Ginn the option to make Morris Island into a small park, an option considered inappropriate by the steering committe due to the island's history and endangered bird nesting areas on the Northern tip of the island.
An attorney for the SC Battleground Preservation Trust looked at the deed at pronounced it legally binding, although inappropriate. He recommended that the issue be brought to the SC State Ethics Commission.
From the Post & Courier on May 17, 2008:
"I'm not going to try to dictate what happens out there, but I do have opinions about it," Ginn said (Ginn, B, 2008).
from the Deed, May 30, 2008:
"Grantor hereby reserves the following rights and imposes the following restrictions on the Property: no construction or development of residential, commercial, or industrial improvements shall be conducted on the Property except for (i) restroom facilities, (ii) trails and markers, (iii) one or more dock(s)"
and
"The Grantee and each Owner further acknowledge and agree that a breach of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth herein shall potentially result in a broad range of economic, social, cultural and residential damages to a large number of parties, that such damages are difficult if not impossible to determine, and that Ginn shall be entitled to seek such remedies as may be available at law or in equity including, but not limited to, injunctive relief and specific performance. "
Our concern has several facets:
1) Ginn’s economic rights will outweigh the City of Charleston’s ability to implement PRC’s “no development” recommendation. Mr. Ginn wants docks on the island despite studies that show them to be potentially detrimental to the island ecology and view shed from Fort Sumter.
2) Mayor Riley has two conflicting documents with which to deal:
a) PRC’s public access study, which calls for no docks, and
b) Ginn’s demand for docks as well as his ability to sue should they not be forthcoming.
3) PRC should be able to recuperate the $104,000of the tax payer money for a study that cannot be utilized due to the restrictive covenants in the deed.
From Mayor Riley’s opinion piece on Sunday, 5-18-08:
“Second, the planning work to answer questions about the island's access and management will continue. City staff and I will now engage in this process and build on the good work that has already been done and data that has been gathered, including the research into the historical and natural resources that must be protected in any plan. The goal in completing the planning process is straightforward — create a visionary plan for how best to accommodate public access and long-term protection of Morris Island."
A bona fide study taking two years and costing $104,000 in taxpayer’s money is not enough?
We will definitely keep you informed of future developments.
Sincerely yours,
Blake Hallman
Morris Island Coalition
Dear Morris Island Coalition members and supporters,
We would like to update you on the latest information related to Morris Island. The Charleston County Park & Recreation Commission (PRC) published its $105,000 study of recommendations related to future access on Morris Island. These recommendations were based upon input from the steering committee as well as the Jaeger Company, an environmental planning company that we helped choose. The study clearly stated that there is no need for a dock as currently there is access through private and commercial boats. The commercial boats are flat bottomed, and have toilets aboard. The study’s rationale is that a dock will open the interior of the island to higher levels of human traffic, which is detrimental to the ecology as well as the island’s archeological features. It will also detrimentally impact the view shed from Fort Sumter.
In a surprise move, interim property owner Bobby Ginn withdrew his option to purchase from the Trust for Public Land and rewrote it to sell the island to The City of Charleston. In doing so the new contract cut out the City of Folly Beach, the Civil War Preservation Trust, and the Charleston County Park & Recreation Commission, all of whom agreed to financially contribute to the island’s purchase, but required bona fide studies to clarify the future management of the island. It should be noted that only the groups requiring formal studies were the ones to be cut out of the deal. All were assured by the Trust for Public Land as well as by Mayor Riley that the new contract was “clean,” with no conditions.
The contract has gone through and the deed has been signed. We may rest easier knowing that Morris Island will never again be threatened with residential development. We are concerned, however, that the deed does indeed contain preconditions. In essence, the deed gives Ginn company “economic rights” to the island for 90 years and allows Ginn the right to sue the City of Charleston should he perceive that his economic rights are limited. These options give Ginn the option to make Morris Island into a small park, an option considered inappropriate by the steering committe due to the island's history and endangered bird nesting areas on the Northern tip of the island.
An attorney for the SC Battleground Preservation Trust looked at the deed at pronounced it legally binding, although inappropriate. He recommended that the issue be brought to the SC State Ethics Commission.
From the Post & Courier on May 17, 2008:
"I'm not going to try to dictate what happens out there, but I do have opinions about it," Ginn said (Ginn, B, 2008).
from the Deed, May 30, 2008:
"Grantor hereby reserves the following rights and imposes the following restrictions on the Property: no construction or development of residential, commercial, or industrial improvements shall be conducted on the Property except for (i) restroom facilities, (ii) trails and markers, (iii) one or more dock(s)"
and
"The Grantee and each Owner further acknowledge and agree that a breach of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth herein shall potentially result in a broad range of economic, social, cultural and residential damages to a large number of parties, that such damages are difficult if not impossible to determine, and that Ginn shall be entitled to seek such remedies as may be available at law or in equity including, but not limited to, injunctive relief and specific performance. "
Our concern has several facets:
1) Ginn’s economic rights will outweigh the City of Charleston’s ability to implement PRC’s “no development” recommendation. Mr. Ginn wants docks on the island despite studies that show them to be potentially detrimental to the island ecology and view shed from Fort Sumter.
2) Mayor Riley has two conflicting documents with which to deal:
a) PRC’s public access study, which calls for no docks, and
b) Ginn’s demand for docks as well as his ability to sue should they not be forthcoming.
3) PRC should be able to recuperate the $104,000of the tax payer money for a study that cannot be utilized due to the restrictive covenants in the deed.
From Mayor Riley’s opinion piece on Sunday, 5-18-08:
“Second, the planning work to answer questions about the island's access and management will continue. City staff and I will now engage in this process and build on the good work that has already been done and data that has been gathered, including the research into the historical and natural resources that must be protected in any plan. The goal in completing the planning process is straightforward — create a visionary plan for how best to accommodate public access and long-term protection of Morris Island."
A bona fide study taking two years and costing $104,000 in taxpayer’s money is not enough?
We will definitely keep you informed of future developments.
Sincerely yours,
Blake Hallman
Morris Island Coalition