Impact fees stir controversy | Local News | Summerville Journal Scene

Printer friendly version |

E-mail to a friend

Impact fees stir controversy

Published Thursday, September 02, 2010 12:58 PM

By Leslie Cantu
Summerville Journal Scene ®

photo by Leslie Cantu

A sign on the Berlin G. Myers Parkway is just one of many placed in high traffic areas.

The bright red signs with the blunt message, “Keep Dorchester County Open for Business” scattered through the county are a sign of the opposition to come for a proposed transportation impact fee.

The signs are part of a campaign by the Charleston Trident Association of Realtors, which is encouraging people to e-mail a pre-written letter of opposition to their county council representatives.

Council voted 5-2 in July in favor of first reading of the ordinance, with Councilmen Chris Murphy and Bill Hearn opposed. The two again voted against first reading when council had to re-read the ordinance Aug. 16. State law requires that the planning commission pass a resolution recommending that council impose impact fees, so the commission passed this resolution in August.

Ryan Castle, government affairs director for the association, said there have been 115 of the form e-mails sent so far.

Council Chairman Jamie Feltner received some of the opposition e-mails starting about a month ago, with most of them coming in over about a week’s time. But he’s also received e-mails in support of impact fees, he said.

Feltner thinks the majority of his constituents support the fees, which would be added to new construction in the lower part of the unincorporated county to pay for road improvements expected to become necessary as the population increases.

Of the opposition, he said, “they’re a little bit louder, because they’re an organized group.” Most people want newcomers to help pay for the infrastructure they’ll need, he said.

The impact fees were part of the comprehensive plan, which was put together in a very public fashion and with input from realtors, homebuilders and others who now oppose the fees, and was unanimously approved by both the planning commission and county council, he said.

Robert Pratt, a realtor and chairman of the planning commission, said he did vote for the comprehensive plan because he thinks the overall plan is good, but “I’m opposed to the transportation impact fee, no question about it.”

“A road is used by everyone. It’s not just used by a person building a daycare center or building a grocery store,” he said.

Dorchester’s tax problem is that its ratio of homes to businesses is unbalanced, he said. “That’s where the rub is right there – we’re a bedroom community,” he said.

Pratt said an impact fee would deter business. Had it been in place over the last 12 months, it would have raised only $200,000, he said, which hardly puts a dent in road needs but might well discourage a builder.

Pratt would rather look at alternatives, like the penny sales tax that voters approved in 2004. Funds from that tax are going toward 22 road projects.

Opponents of the impact fees point to Berkeley County, which they say wants to do away with its impact fee because it’s scaring away development. Berkeley charges an impact fee only in the southwestern corner of the county.

Dan Davis, Berkeley County supervisor, said there’s been talk of eliminating the impact fee, which is dedicated to the new interstate exchange at Jedburg, and adding that project to the 1 percent sales tax, but discussions are still preliminary. The sales tax has another five years, he said, and the original projects would need to be completed before any new projects were added.

It’s hard to say if the impact fee has halted any development, Davis said. “I don’t know that I can say that – that anybody has not located,” because of it, he said. Still, with the economy the way it is, “I can’t imagine that helps,” he said.

Second reading and a public hearing of the Dorchester proposal will be Sept. 20. The ordinance calls for charging 80 percent of the maximum allowable fee that land planners Kimley-Horn and Associates developed in a study for the county.

Comments

Notice about comments:

Journalscene.com ® is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Journalscene.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 Journalscene.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 reading our terms and conditions, and then signing up below!

Full terms and conditions can be read here.

Poll Question

For entertainment, I mainly go out in...

Most Viewed
Most Commented

104 East Doty Avenue | Summerville, SC 29483 | 843-873-9424 office | 843-873-9432 fax