City council ignoring concerns?

Dear Editor,

The proposed Wolfcreek annexation continues to astonish a huge majority of citizens. 1,400 people have signed a petition in opposition, “NO ANNEXATION” signs are everywhere. Dozens of phone calls and letters have been sent to City Council with nothing but polite ambiguous responses.  Yet Council continues to move the process forward and everyone is wondering “Why”?  Everyone in the City and County are trying to understand the logic of continuing on this path.  A number have asked the Mayor and Council to provide a simple accounting of anticipated costs and income from the proposed annexation.  None has been provided.

It is increasingly apparent that the City Council is not representing the vast majority of voters who oppose this development, but rather, one entitled property owner and a predatory national land developer.  Executive sessions, private meetings in City offices, private phone calls, private emails, meetings in private homes.  No public comment allowed on the May 28 meeting agenda where Council will vote on a first reading!  Is

You must be logged in to view this content.  

this representative government??

The questions and issues grow weekly:

1. The City has not addressed Service and Contiguity conflicts with State law.
2. The 2012 Pickens Comprehensive Plan lists “Preservation of existing community character” as #1 priority. The County designated this area as “Agricultural Heritage” area with minimum 1 acre lots. Yet the developer, and apparently, City Council, think that a conforming use is 8 homes per acre with 7’ setbacks!
3. The Federal Superfund site next to Wolf Creek is listed as an Active Site in the 2020 report with bans on drinking water and other toxic contamination warnings. Does the City Council think that it’s a good idea to build 140 homes on top of contaminated ground water? Does the Council intend to require that the developer post an indemnity bond to protect City assets from future lawsuits?  This is NOT optional.
4. The City can’t account for $150,000 for fiscal year 2022-23. The developer is being sued for fraud in Charleston.  Where is the integrity in our process?

The developer told us at the April 23rd Town Hall that they need density to make money.  Why is it that the developer and property owner think that it is our obligation to change our community standards to accommodate their business model for earning a big profit?  Dean Holder’s relative Dwight Holder, built Heritage Estates with 2 acre lots and trees preserved.  Mr. Holders niece recently subdivided land around Holden Pond into 5 acre lots.  Community standards were respected in these developments.  BRD and Mr. Holder need to bring a development plan which respects OUR community standards and not the other way around.  Will City Council support this basic principle – and an overwhelming majority of citizens?  If Council wants to take a position that this city style high density development is “good for the community”, then lets put it to a vote for City voters and let the people decide.  We need to bring democracy to Pickens.

Sincerely

Peter Greenberger

Pickens

Roundabout is not the best solution

Dear Editor:

On Thursday, May 15th my husband and I attended the Information and Public Comment meeting at Ambler Elementary School.  We learned that this meeting was being held to give information regarding a proposed roundabout at the five-way intersection of Highway 11, New Hope Road, S. Saluda Road and Country Creek Drive in Northern Pickens County.

The total estimated cost for the improvement is $6,150.000 of which the Appalachian Council of Governments has secured federal funds in the amount of $4,680,000 and state funds of $1,170,000.  Who is responsible for the difference if the project goes over budget?

We do not believe that a roundabout is the best solution at this five-way intersection.  18 wheelers, trucks pulling boats and trailers, transporting mobile homes, heavy equipment, and construction materials travel the highway on a daily basis. In addition, recreational vehicles frequent highway 11. According to the representative we spoke with, vehicles would need to reduce speed to 25 mph to safely navigate the roundabout.  18 wheelers will struggle to reduce their speed, and it will take time to get back up to speed due to the inclines going south and north from the proposed project.  This could easily cause additional accidents when impatient drivers attempt to pass the slower vehicles.

There is a drop-off at the entrance of Aunt Sue’s and at New Hope Road. Weaver Creek is located on each property. How is this to be protected if a vehicle hits the roundabout wrong and overturns, creating an environmental hazard.

Highway 11 is designated as a Scenic Highway.  During the summer and fall months, this highway is heavily traveled by tourists and visitors who are unfamiliar with the road.

The construction of a roundabout is a very lengthy, expensive project. There are newly installed flashing yellow lights on Hwy 11 & flashing red on the side roads.  This is a temporary measure, but it is much more cost effective.  SCDOT could leave these lights in place and review the data at the end of the tourist season this fall.  Another solution would be to replace the flashing lights with traffic signals and, or widen the intersection and install turning lanes.

Nancy and Mike Goldsmith

Cleveland, SC