Charleston P&C: Sales tax for Greenbelt Opinion
neillh...@earthlink.net
Editorial: The type of Charleston County greenbelt funding matters as much as the amount
- BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF
- 4 hrs ago
This canopy of live oaks is just a tiny fraction of the approximately 28,000 acres protected to date with Charleston County's greenbelt funds. Extending the program should emphasize similar rural work.
It's encouraging to see Charleston County Council seemingly inclined to allot a much larger percentage of revenue from the next transportation sales tax to greenbelt funding, but as discussions continue on preparing a November referendum to extend this tax, council members should bear in mind that the type of greenbelt funding matters as much as the total.
And the type should be geared more toward protecting and conserving rural lands than helping cities with new and improved parks.
From its inception in 2004, the county's greenbelt program has been divvied up into two parts: a rural component and an urban one. The original 0.5-percent sales tax allocated 70 percent of its greenbelt dollars toward the rural component, but that fell to 50 percent when the tax was expanded to a full 1 percent in 2016.
We had urged the county to maintain the 70-30 rural-urban split, noting the program's primary intent was to create a natural buffer against ever-increasing urban sprawl. Indeed, the definition of "greenbelt" is an area of open land around a city, on which building is restricted.
What was true a decade ago remains true today: Large sections of Johns, Wadmalaw and Edisto islands still need protection, as do lands in and around Hollywood, Ravenel and Meggett, as well as rural areas near the upper Cooper and Santee rivers.
Late last year, several conservation groups joined forces to ask for $750 million to support their work protecting rural areas, providing public access to waterways, conserving ecologically sensitive areas, reducing flooding and strengthening rural livelihoods. If County Council ultimately follows its staff recommendation to allot 20 percent of the proceeds from the extended tax to greenbelts, that request would consume most of the $850 million in the new greenbelt pot.
But the staff's recommendation presented this week would maintain the 50-50 rural-urban split. That needs to change in the weeks and months to come as County Council further debates and seeks public feedback on the precise proposal to be put before county voters on Nov. 3.
We urge that a significant percentage of the extended tax be allocated toward greenbelts in general. The staff's recommendation for 20 percent total seems sensible; it's slightly higher than the 17 percent share from the 2004 sales tax and significantly more than the 10 percent in the 2016 referendum.
But whatever share of the pie the greenbelt program receives, the county should commit to spending at least 70 percent, possibly more, on the program's rural side.
After all, the main message on the county's greenbelt website is that the program has helped protect almost 28,000 acres for parks, greenspaces and conservation. Part of the greenbelt program should continue to help cities acquire new park sites, but that need is not as urgent as protecting rural lands. County Council members want to funnel money into their districts, and most of them represent the urban portion of the county. But they must understand that protecting the beauty and tranquility of the remaining rural areas is the greater good.
The county's growing population and growing development pressures beyond our metro core highlight the need to increase efforts to protect scenic, productive and sensitive rural land, especially as the cost of land and the cost of conserving it continue to rise.
Click here for more opinion content from The Post and Courier.
STORIES FOR YOU