Wednesday, July 3, 2013
I’m not sure if the people living in the Charleston National, Hamlin, Darrell Creek and Commonwealth subdivisions are aware of the new C10 rating applying to those areas. The C10 rating is a code for homes that are more than five miles from the nearest fire station. In this case, the two closest are Dunes West and Six Mile. My house is 5.7 miles from Dunes West Station. My insurance carrier has informed me that they will no longer insure me. Twenty-four years and only one small claim (someone stole my new riding lawnmower from my driveway) and I am dropped. I have been trying unsuccessfully to get new insurance at a reasonable rate, but the best quotes are double what I’ve paid in the past.
Each insurance company claims that this rate is necessary because we are C10. It doesn’t matter that I am within five miles as a crow flies from the station or the fact that I have a hydrant in my front yard.
Our only option is for the new station planned for Carolina Park to be built as soon as possible. As soon as this station is operational, our rates will drop back to what we’ve been paying in the past.
We all need to write to our state representatives and ask them to expedite the building of this unit. I have contacted Mount Pleasant Fire Department, and they understand the urgency of this. They have been very helpful. I have received a letter stating that everything has been approved. It is now up to the politicians to cut the red tape out and get things moving.
I intend to badger any politician I can to get this going. We all need to do the same or we will be out thousands of dollars.
Call for action
On July 9, Mayor Swails and the members of the town council will take a final vote on re-zoning the Seacoast land track from economic development to residential.
Many of you may be asking yourself why is the re-zoning such a big deal?
It is a big deal for many reasons.
1. The Seacoast track is the largest economic development track close to I-526.
Voting to change it to residential would be voting against the town’s own comprehensive plan. Economic development will bring long-term gains to Mount Pleasant in the form of business taxes and fees, as well as employment opportunities.
2. There are currently 14 housing developments occurring in Mount Pleasant. They range in size from 2,000 home sites to 40 home sites. With this much housing development, there is no need for more.
3. A housing development on the Seacoast track will overwhelm an already overcrowded school system, as well as an already failing intersection: Belle Hall Parkway and Long Point Road, which the town has failed to address.
4. The Seacoast track is located right on I-526. Residential developments right on a major highway are the least desirable types of property – look at Etiwan Pointe. On Daniel Island do you see residential development on I-526? No, commercial properties are on the highway.
5. The Seacoast track sits in front of the residential development Grassy Creek. Grassy Creek residents built or purchased their homes with the understanding that the property would be economic development providing buffers between their homes and any development on the Seacoast property.
Residential does not provide buffers.
One’s home is the most important investment a person makes. By Mayor Swails and town council voting to change it to residential, they are not protecting the investments of the residents of Grassy Creek.
So, what can the residents of Mount Pleasant do?
They can contact Mayor Swails and the members of town council and tell them to keep the track economic. Send your emails to CouncilCLK@tompsc.com.
They can attend the July 9 town council meeting at 6 p.m. and speak out against changing the Seacoast development to residential.
For the best interest of the town and residents, the Seacoast track needs to stay economic development.
My husband and I arrived back in Mount Pleasant this past Monday after an extended trip to Detroit and Chicago.
We picked up the most recent issue of Moultrie News to catch up and we read with great interest the article about the “Book of Mormon” by Bill Farley.
Having just seen the musical two days earlier in Chicago, we couldn’t agree more with Mr. Farley’s excellent review of such an outstanding Broadway show.
As he stated so eloquently, it was a “true evening of entertainment well worth enjoying.”
The Gazette is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. We do 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 The Gazette.