Gross Mischaracterization

Letters to the Editor 2/26/14

Gross mischaracterization

A recent letter writer tries to perpetuate the myth that only a couple of disgruntled residents oppose the recent actions of Sullivan's Island Town Council.

In view of the 49.3 percent of islanders who voted last May for someone other than Mayor Mike Perkis, that is a gross mischaracterization of the island-wide disquiet about the direction in which this town council is taking Sullivan's Island.

Town council is considering several projects that will have significant and long-term impacts on the entire community. Property taxes and fees would be increased for every islander to pay for these projects.

Major quality of life issues are at stake. With all of the potential changes, Sullivan's Island could well be unrecognizable in a few short years – not to mention unaffordable.

In spite of numerous requests for greater transparency and more opportunity to provide feedback, islanders continue to be frustrated by the difficulty in getting timely information from town council.

No one who attended the February workshop or listened to the tapes of the meeting could accurately describe any of the questions asked by residents as “outbursts.” The same could not be said of some of the council's responses, however. But residents have a right to know and comment on what public officials are doing. And public officials have a responsibility to tell them. It's the law.

In fact, a Berkeley County resident was just awarded a reported $65,000 to settle a lawsuit filed after he was denied his right to speak at a school board meeting.

The problem on Sullivan's Island is not residents who ask uncomfortable questions.

The problem is a town council that wants to parcel out information only as it pleases and shut down dissent by attempting to disparage and embarass the questioners.

 Barbara Spell 

Sullivan's Island

http://www.moultrienews.com/article/20140226/MN01/140229776/0/MN&slId=1

                                                                                      

More keen insights from a long-time islander...

The Whiney Coyote is back and crankier than ever! So what am I whining about this time? A lengthy article was published in The  Moultrie News by island resident Wayne Stelljes. Did you get a chance to read it? Please do. Let me know what your thoughts are on his remarks. But first I ask that you read the other side of the story. No matter how flat the pancake, there are always 2 sides.

In the May 17,2013 issue of The Island Eye, our newly (and narrowly) elected mayor, Mike Perkis, stated that his most important goal was to bring this island back together. He wanted to run town business through consensus building. He said it would be hard work, and the process would be slow. But, he said, the results would be worth it.

In the January 31, 2014 issue of The Island Eye, Mayor Perkis announced the times of Council Meetings and Council Workshops. He asked residents to attend, ask questions, and provide feedback so that he and Council members could make decisions that were in the best interest of our community.

Sounds good, doesn't it? But how can a resident gauge if Mayor Perkis means what he says? My island friend and I took him at his word; we attend many council and workshops meetings.

On February 3, 2014, my friend and I attended the Council Workshop. You might be interested to know that there were only 3 other residents at this meeting. When discussion began on Film and Photography fees, my friend asked the Mayor if she could ask a question. Mayor Perkis responded, "No. No, you can't". He instructed the council members to "keep going".

My friend reminded our mayor that islanders were told they could ask questions. Our mayor responded that he wanted the meeting to "move along." My friend was persistent in her efforts to ask her question. Mayor Perkis asked her if her question was "short". What difference does it make if her question was long or short? She had a question and wanted an answer. Isn't that what our mayor has repeatedly encouraged islanders to do?

This Whiney Coyote was feeling discouraged and unwelcomed. No questions unless they're short? Keep reading, please.

We remained quiet until the agenda addressed the Water Sewer Committee. My friend, God bless her, dared to ask another question. Now I must say this question was an important one because there is so much "chatter" about our system being linked up with Mt. Pleasant's.

 By the way, trying to understand the Water/Sewer Department is akin to trying to learn Russian in one week. Our problems are significant. Asking questions is critical to understanding the scope of the problem and its potential solutions.

My friend asked: "Who from Sullivan's Island is meeting with the folks over in Mt. Pleasant?" Our mayor ignored the question and said that they were finished talking about that topic. Council member and mayor pro tem, Jerry Kaynard, interjected by saying that when council is finished with an item they do not have to stop and answer questions from island residents. Wow! So now questions had to be short, AND they must be asked at exactly the correct
moment.

Begrudgingly, Mayor Perkis said that he and he alone was meeting with Clay Duffie, General Manager of Mt. Pleasant Waterworks, and some of his commissioners. We asked and were told that there are no minutes or record of these meetings. One follow-up question asked why the Chair (Susan Middaugh) of the Water and Sewer Committee was not included in these discussions. Her response was startling. She said she is excluded from the discussions with Mt. Pleasant because she was not on Council when these talks began. Wouldn't her involvement be pertinent to our water/sewer issues?

I'm feeling whiny because I don't want my government to control me. I don't think you do either. This island is small enough that we can have an active, participatory style of government. When a mayor says that an islander can ask a question if it is "short" -something is wrong. When a council member refuses to answer a question because it wasn't asked at the right time - something is wrong.

To be completely honest, this council did not want to answer our questions because they don't like us. We ask probing, tough questions. We are not falling in lockstep with their agenda, and the resentment is palpable.

Do we want a government that we can trust, or do we want a government that unilaterally acts on its own power? Many of us think this Mayor and Town Council need close monitoring. A new Town Hall, the commercialism and expansion of Middle Street, the changes to our park, the unending saga of the water/sewer issues, the accreted land lawsuit, and the tenure of town employees are hugely significant issues. Their impact will affect each of us.

Did you get a vote or a voice on any of these island-altering issues? We think our island has a lot to lose if it is not carefully managed. We think that "charm" and "tradition" are as much a part of our history as the battles fought at Fort Moultrie.

This Council feels that our questions interrupt their agenda. They do. And they should. There lies the distinct difference between my side of the story and that of Mr. Stelljes. Sadly, this mayor and his council believe that they have all the knowledge necessary to empower themselves and singularly decide what is best for our town. A government that dictates to its citizens is a dangerous one. And we all know all too well what follows:

                     "First they came for the coyotes…”

Whiney Coyote (Karen Coste)

http://islandeyenews.com/?p=10085: Perkis Prevails

Excerpt: “Engaging our residents, working together, as we work through decisions on these opportunities will help develop a more consensus environment,” he added. “Building consensus is hard work and the process sometimes takes a little longer, but the end results always make these efforts worthwhile.” (Mayor Mike Perkis)

For more information on Sullivan’s Island issues and the potential impact on the entire community, go to: sicommunityimpact.com.

                                     

                                                  

About That Amphitheater....

SI Town Council seems to be very confused about whether there are plans for an amphitheater on Sullivan's Island.  When asked to comment on the issue at the recent Council workshop, Councilwoman Hartley Cooper first something about not knowing how residents got the idea that there would be an amphitheater on Sullivan's Island. When a resident pointed out that the information came from an article in the Post and Courier, Hartley said that reporter Prentiss Findlay just got it wrong. She then added, "It wouldn't be the first time!" Then another council member jumped in an said, "Not a dug-out amphitheater..." 

So does Town Council plan to build an amphitheater at the park or not? If an amphitheater is something islanders want--and want to pay for--why does Town Council not just say so? And why didn't Town Council present the idea to islanders and get feedback at the two public forums held to get input on the design of the new Town Hall? And how is it that the Park Foundation never discussed an amphitheater at any of its meetings?

Sullivan's Island needs and deserves a Town Council that engages the community in a truly participatory planning process, rather than just dictating to it--and phoning it in to the Post and Courier.

Groundhog Day on SI

Sullivan’s Island has its own unique version of Groundhog Day: No matter what the question is, the answer from many public officials is “more density.” This time it’s about increasing the number of eating establishments in the commercial district. 

Is this something that islanders are clamoring for? For that matter, is this something that other SI restaurant owners are clamoring for?  Who, exactly, would benefit?

According to the November minutes, the Planning Commission began a review of the current zoning ordinance in an effort to clarify Town ordinances as they apply to one existing eating establishment, Café Medley. One of the provisions in the new amendment  would increase the number of eating establishments allowed on SI. So how is it that a supposed need to clarify Town ordinances as they apply to one existing business necessitates a provision increasing the overall number of eating establishments allowed on SI?

Many islanders are concerned about the impact to SI residential neighborhoods. Twelve islanders in the surrounding neighborhood submitted a letter to the Planning Commission in December, expressing concerns about parking, traffic, and other possible unintended consequences.  In addition, a number of islanders got wind of what was going on and attended the December Planning Commission meeting to comment on the proposed amendment. 

Further discussion was deferred pending a ruling by the SC Ethics Commission on a potential conflict of interest by Commissioner Rusty Bennett (Rusty has an ownership interest in Poe's.  Some on the Planning Commission thought that could be a conflict of interest in discussions about other eating establishments.)

In an informal opinion (attached below), the Ethics Commission stated that there may in fact be a conflict of interest and that the question must be answered by the Ethics Commission in a formal opinion.  The next meeting of the SC Ethics Commission is March 19 in Columbia.

Several questions come to mind:

• How many additional eating establishments would be allowed under the new ordinance?  
• Is there a plan for additional parking?
• Is there a possibility that properties currently zoned residential would be converted to parking?
• Have all potential conflicts of interest by Town Council members been addressed?
• What about the increased stress on SI infrastructure--police, fire and water/sewer?
• Will Town Council make an effort to engage islanders and consider feedback prior to a vote on the amendment?

 So—just one month after acknowledging island-wide opposition to multi-family rezoning, due to islanders' concerns about potential  increases in traffic, congestion and parking issues, the Planning Commission introduced yet another amendment that would increase traffic, congestion and parking issues. Seems that Groundhog Day never ends on Sullivan’s Island.

The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 12 at 6:30 pm at Town Hall. 

"Changes in the community should be given careful attention in order to assure that there is not a loss in the character or charm of Sullivan’s Island. It is this ambiance that has drawn people to live here since the 18th century…The main vision of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve the residential character of the Island and the commercial area in a condition very similar to how they currently appear, working to preserve the memory of Sullivan’s Island from the past two centuries." (Sullivan’s Island 2013 Comprehensive Plan, pg. 93)