Two ballot questions up for vote in next week’s election have Charleston County residents split, with notable advocacy groups and community leaders loudly proclaiming their opposition.

Charleston County is seeking to extend a half-penny sales tax previously passed in 2016 to generate $5.4 billion to pay for large-scale infrastructure projects — including the extension of Interstate 526 across Johns Island. Almost half of all funds raised through the half-cent tax (about $2.3 billion) would go toward the interstate project, including more than $600 million to pay interest costs on a tax-backed loan worth $1.8 billion.

At an Oct. 15 Charleston County Council meeting, dozens of residents and local advocates spoke for roughly an hour during a special public comment period. Those who spoke against the sales tax pointed to its unclear language, the unfinished projects from the 2016 tax and grievances with the Mark Clark extension project as reasons to vote against the measure.“The county has already failed to pursue all but one of the projects from the previous sales tax,” one speaker said.

The new tax would also pay for millions of dollars of work that was supposed to be covered by the 2016 referendum. About 5% of the new tax’s revenue, or $282,223,000, would go toward “carryover projects” from the 2016 sales tax.

“Once more, we’re back where we started again,” another said. “It’s time to start from scratch.”Meanwhile, groups like Citizens for Safe Roads, a grassroots movement, support the referendum.

In its “Vote Yes” campaign, the group said: “The transportation sales tax potential distributions include billions for road improvements across Charleston County necessary to improve the safety of dangerous intersections; reduce response times for EMS, fire, police; improve hurricane evacuation routes; and reduce traffic injuries and fatalities.”

Altogether, the funds raised by the sales tax would be allocated to:

Opponents say lumping the massive Mark Clark extension project with other, crucial improvements is unfair to voters.

“Charleston County voters deserve to make informed choices when they head to the polls. They should not be forced into an all-or-nothing decision,” Coastal Conservation League Executive Director Faith Rivers James said in a statement. “Voters deserve the right to vote for preferred needed improvements — like Greenbelt and CARTA funds — without being forced to support the destructive and unnecessary Mark Clark extension as the priority project.”

Republican County Council member Larry Kobrovsky of Sullivan’s Island added that there’s no guarantee all of the projects funded by the new sales tax would be built, either, adding to the uncertainty of the measure.

“My fear is that we will jeopardize ongoing projects from the [2016] sales tax,” he told the Charleston City Paper in a previous report. “By lumping it all, we’re holding hostage all these other projects to 526.

“When people vote on this, they think the projects will be built,” he said. “This is just a fantasy. … There’s no guarantee we will have the money to finish these projects. How can we in good faith put out something that we don’t have the money for? To me, that wouldn’t be ethical or fair.”

A second question on the ballot would approve the issuance of up to $1 billion in bonds to the county payable from the new sales tax. If passed, the new sales tax would be active starting in 2027 and remain in place for no more than 25 years, or until a matching total of $5.4 billion in returning revenue has been collected.

Know your candidates before you head to the polls

Election Day may look a little different this year. Up to 140,000 Charleston County voters are expected to have voted before Nov. 5, according to county election officials, which will make it much smoother at the polls for same-day voters, projected to be about 80,000 people.Here is a list of all candidates in contested races who will be on Charleston Countyballots to help readers prepare to check the box when they arrive at their polling locations.

District 1 — Nancy Mace (Republican, incumbent); Michael B. Moore (Democrat)

District 6 — Duke Buckner (Republican); James Clyburn (Democrat, incumbent); Gregg Marcel Dixon (United Citizens); Joseph Oddo (Alliance); Michael Simpson (Libertarian)

District 20 — Kendal Ludden (Libertarian); Ed Sutton (Democrat, incumbent)

District 41 — Rita Adkins (Democrat); Matt Leber (Republican)

District 43 — Chip Campsen (Republican); Julie Cofer Hussey (Democrat)

District 44 — Brian Adams (Republican, incumbent); Vicky Wynn (Democrat)

District 15 — J.A. Moore (Democrat, incumbent); Carlton Walker (Republican)

District 80 — Kathy Landing (Republican, incumbent); Donna Brown Newton (Democrat)

District 110 — Tom Hartnett (Republican, incumbent); John Moffett (Democrat)

District 111 — Wendell G. Gilliard (Democrat, incumbent); Joe Jernigan (Libertarian)

District 112 — Peter Brennan (Democrat); Joe Bustos (Republican, incumbent)

District 114 — Gary Brewer (Republican, incumbent); Adrienne Lett (Democrat)

District 115 — J. Warren Sloane (Republican); Spencer Wetmore (Democrat, incumbent)

District 116 — Charlie Murray (Democrat); James Teeple (Republican)

District 119 — Brendan R. Magee (Republican); Leon Stavrinakis (Democrat, incumbent)

District 3 — Hayden W. Seignious (Republican); Rob Wehrman (Democrat, incumbent)

District 7 — Brantley Moody (Republican, incumbent); Sydney Van Bulck (Democrat)

9th Circuit Solicitor — David Osborne (Democrat); Scarlett A. Wilson (Republican, incumbent)

Sheriff — Kristin R. Graziano (Democrat, incumbent); Carl Ritchie (Republican)

Coroner — Frank Broccolo (Democrat); Bobbi Jo O’Neal (Republican, incumbent)

Treasurer — Mary Tinkler (Democrat, incumbent); Mike Van Horn Sr. (Republican)

District 2 — Carolina D. Jewett; Ed Kelley (incumbent)

District 4 — Kevin D. Hollinshead; Craig Logan

District 6 — Daron Lee Calhoun II (incumbent); Michele Leber; Samuel Whatley II

District 8 — Darlene Dunmeyer-Roberson (incumbent); Michelle Faust; Charles Glover Sr.

District 1, St. James Santee — Thomas Legrant Colleton Jr.; Chayann Lashay Simpson; Marie Snyder-Facine

District 3, James Island — Sue McManus; George Tempel

District 4, Cooper River Area 3 — Lala B. Fyall; Jametta L. King

District 4, Cooper River at Large — Michael Garnett; Jametta L. King

District 9, St. Johns — Bill Antonucci; Pat Cline; Gertie S. Ford; Cedric I. Solomon

District 10, St. Andrews — Francis Marion Beylotte III; Joy Brown; Piare A. Powell

District 20, Peninsula — Downing Child; F.X. Clasby

District 23, St. Pauls — Blanche Bowens; Marvin Lamar Bowens; Tiffany Deas-Smalls; Elijah Hammer Dent; Damian M. Jones; Richmond Truesdale

The Charleston County Board of Voter Registration and Elections is reminding voters to double-check their polling locations ahead of the 2024 general election next week,as some locations in the county have moved.

Of the locations that have moved, one is in McClellanville, six are in Mount Pleasant, three are in North Charleston, one is in West Ashley and one is in Hollywood.

Charleston County residents can check their polling location and make sure their voter registration is up to date online at chsvotes.gov.

Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Nov. 5.

It’s not too late to vote early, but time is running out.

Voters can cast an early ballot at seven locations through Saturday. Early voting is open from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. Polling locations:

Help keep the City Paper free.No paywalls.No subscription cost.Free delivery at 800 locations.

Help support independent journalism by donating today.

[empowerlocal_ad sponsoredarticles]

Marine Corps investigators blamed the pilot for the high-profile crash of a F-35B stealth fighter jet last year near Charleston, S.C., in which the plane continued to fly more than 60 miles after the pilot ejected.

The pilot should have remained in the plane after experiencing electrical malfunctions while nearing his landing location at Joint Base Charleston on Sept. 17, 2023, according to an investigation dated Jan. 18, 2024, but made public by the Marine Corps on Thursday. The F-35’s “advanced automatic flight-control systems” allowed the plane to continue flying itself about 64 miles northeast onto private property near Hemmingway, S.C., where it went unfound for more than a day after it crashed, the investigation concluded.

“The pilot incorrectly diagnosed an out-of-controlled flight emergency and ejected from a flyable aircraft, albeit during a heavy rainstorm compounded with aircraft electrical and display malfunctions,” investigators wrote in the 111-page report.

Despite finding the pilot was wrong to eject, investigators recommended no punishment for the Marine in the case. The pilot’s commanding officer agreed, according to service documents.

The pilot’s name and rank were redacted in the investigation report. Investigators found the pilot was “qualified and current” to fly the advanced aircraft and he was of “sound mind and body” before the crash. The investigation described the pilot as a “highly experienced” aviator with more than 2,800 flight hours in the Marines, primarily on the AV-8B Harrier jet. But the pilot had limited experience on the F-35B, with about 32 hours flying time on that jet before the crash. The pilot was assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 501 of the 2nd Marine Air Wing.

The incident occurred at about 1:30 p.m. local time at Joint Base Charleston shortly after the pilot began procedures to conduct a vertical landing — a feature that allows the Marines’ version of the F-35B to land in a similar fashion to a helicopter. After putting his landing gear down and transitioning into vertical landing mode, the pilot reported his helmet mounted display, which provides flight information and date directly on a F-35 pilot’s helmet visor, flicked on and off at least two times.

The helmet display showed “multiple cautions and warnings” ahead of the landing attempt, the pilot reported. After the second time the instruments cut out, the pilot “determined that a runway landing was not feasible” and reverted the F-35 into its regular flight mode, he told investigators. The display flicked off again, prompting the pilot to believe the aircraft was uncontrollable and that ejection was necessary.

After the pilot ejected from the aircraft — eventually landing without major injury in a backyard in a residential neighborhood about one mile from the base — the F-35 continued to fly for 11 minutes and 21 seconds before crashing into dense forest about 64 nautical miles from where the pilot ejected. The Joint Base Charleston tower was able initially to track the jet, but lost radar contact with it after it flew about 23 nautical miles, the investigation found.

With the plane missing, Marine officials launched a massive hunt for the jet, which included military assets and civilian law enforcement. The jet would not be found until about 27 hours after the pilot ejected.

Investigators found the low flight path and the F-35s stealth features likely contributed to Joint Base Charleston’s tower losing contact with the jet. They found numerous factors including the loss of radar contact, “little to no fire” created in the crash, and the crash site’s location deep in dense forest contributed to the difficulties finding the aircraft.

Even from the sky, “the crash site was hardly noticeable,” the investigators wrote.

“The only visible aircraft part from the air was a large chunk of the engine,” the report reads.

Investigators credited the search teams with finding the F-35 and cleaning up the debris in an environmentally conscious way. The cleanup process took about one month.

No people were injured on the ground in the crash, but the Marines said it resulted in the loss of privately owned “forested land and crops.”

It also ended in the loss of the F-35B, worth about $100 million, investigators wrote.

related stories

Home>Construction>

Behind the scenes of South Carolina Aquarium’s next exhibit in Charleston

A women-focused construction organization recently got a sneak peek of South Carolina Aquarium’s next exhibit.

Over 30 members of the Charleston Chapter of the National Association of Women in Construction attended a hard hat tour of the much-anticipated South Carolina Aquarium Boeing Learning Lab being constructed at the Charleston Maritime Center next to the International African American History Museum, according to a news release.

Trident Construction hosted the all-female group of leaders in the construction industry. This was an opportunity for the group to survey the project site and learn how Trident Construction, along with architect John Ciccarelli and engineers, are working together to create a customized learning lab for the South Carolina Aquarium, the release stated.

“There are many talented female leaders in the construction industry, especially here in Charleston,” said Tim Kennedy, president of Trident Construction, in the release. “Our company is thrilled to support these extraordinary individuals by hosting an event for them at one of our favorite projects, The Boeing Learning Lab.”

Jordan Dickens, who is on the board of directors of NAWIC, said the non-profit organization feels it’s important to ensure the next generation sees the important role women are playing in the construction industry.

“All our members are experts in their field,” Dickens said in the release, “whether that’s owning their own construction firm as I do or working in what was once considered a man’s role such as plumbing, electricity, roofing and HVAC, they do it all and they do it extremely well.”

Related: South Carolina Aquarium breaks ground on Boeing Learning Lab

Situated along the waterfront of the Charleston Harbor and a short walk from the South Carolina Aquarium, the Boeing Learning Lab will comprise 8,500 square feet of educational space that includes four indoor classrooms, one open-air classroom, a broadcast studio to conduct virtual programs, and office space for aquarium staff.

The Learning Lab, which will be run by the South Carolina Aquarium’s education department and will double the number of students they can serve annually through their core education offerings, including a slate of teen programs, including the High School Intern Program and Teen Science Cafés, the release stated.

The Boeing Learning Lab is a collaboration with the city of Charleston, and broke ground July 2023, and is estimated to be complete by December 2024.

s

CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCSC) - Those both for and against the transportation sales tax are making their last-ditch effort to sway undecided voters.

Two separate news conferences were held on Wednesday. The first urged voters to vote yes and the second urged voters to vote no.

If the tax is renewed, Charleston County residents would pay a half-cent sales tax for 25 years, starting in 2027. From that money, $5.4 billion will go toward 22 large-scale transportation, drainage and greenbelt projects.

Officials for the tax say the renewal is necessary to fund several projects that will relieve traffic congestion and accidents.

They believe voting no is a vote to kill Charleston’s transportation program.

“It doesn’t have anything to do with some agenda, we just need to get it done,” North Charleston Mayor Reggie Burgess said. ”If we can get it done, the county, city and state can do so much more around that. It’s time, it’s time.”

Vice Chairwoman Jenny Honeycutt is in favor of the tax and says there’s a lot more to do as the county continues to grow.

“One of the very misleading messages is that parts of the county may not gain as much from this, but we are regionally connected, and it has always been our priority to make sure every area is represented,” Honeycutt said. “In other sales taxes, east of the Cooper has seen much more improvement while Johns Island and south parts of Charleston haven’t, and now it’s their turn.”

Officials against the tax say the only project listed as a priority is the Mark Clark Extension, which will consume almost half of the entire 2024 tax and lead to overdevelopment.

Councilman Larry Kobrovsky is voting no and wants to see council to create something that covers all needs of the county in a fiscally responsible manner.

“They are hundreds of millions of dollars short of being able to build those other things and they aren’t committed to it, those other projects are just a wish list,” Kobrovsky said. ”There’s no way of knowing whether or not it’s going to be done. I ask people to vote now and make us come back with something that is definite.”

The decision is up to the voters, and we’ll know what they’ve decided in less than a week.

For more information on the referendum, click here.

Copyright 2024 WCSC. All rights reserved.

|Updated: Oct. 30, 2024 at 4:13 AM EDT

CHARLESTON COUNTY, S.C. (WCSC) - Charleston County council members met Tuesday night and approved to be a part of the Tax Increment Financing District, or TIF, for the redevelopment of Union Pier.

Charleston mayor William Cogswell presented the redevelopment plan for Union Pier last month and county officials said they had until Nov. 4th to vote on if they wanted to be a part of it or not.

A TIF is a public financing tool designed to stimulate private investment in a blighted area.

Using a TIF system will allow the city to divert the property tax revenue generated by private redevelopment projects into a fund to pay for public infrastructure projects. This includes stormwater drainage, public spaces like parks, water access, as well as affordable housing at Union Pier.

Essentially, it will increase the assessed value of the property in the project area, which will lead to higher tax revenue.

Currently, Union Pier does not bring in any tax revenue. Cogswell said that this private investment could be worth about $2 billion, with it anticipated to generate $47 million in tax revenue annually in 30 years.

However, Charleston County School District, Charleston County and the City of Charleston would not see that tax revenue from the project until the 30-year financing period is over.

CCSD was approved to be a part of the Union Pier TIF on Monday night. Part of the school district’s deal with the city was that they had to surrender their office space located at 75 Calhoun St., leaving that additional 30,000 square feet to CCSD.

Charleston County also made an intergovernmental agreement with the city to get their approval for this TIF. With that agreement, the city would be giving up ownership of 294 parking spaces located in the Cumberland Street Garage. The money that comes from people who pay to park there would then be going back to the county. The city will still have the option to use those spaces however they’d have to pay the county 30.6% of the operating costs.

Charleston County Council member, Brantley Moody, said he is looking forward to seeing the redevelopment of Union Pier. One concern he had previously mentioned was making sure that the county had its expenses covered for the next 30 years.

“So the area as it grows, we are going to see apartments come there, hotels, restaurants and things like that, that the county has to provide services for whether its EMS, 911, and things like that, so my big concern was making sure we had a revenue source to cover those costs and I’m confident that we do,” Moody said.

Another Charleston County Council member, Jenny Honeycutt, also said that she was excited to see what would come out of this project.

“The county is really looking forward to what the city can do with this incredible resource we have. We are very glad that we have a local partner willing to redevelop this area and the county is happy to be partnering in that,” Honeycutt said.

The IGAs for both the school district and the county will go to the City of Charleston on Nov. 4 for a second and final reading.

Copyright 2024 WCSC. All rights reserved.