From the Archives: "We need a new neighborhood model"
This opinion piece appeared in The (Hilton Head) Island Packet on February 25, 1996. Below is a transcription of the full piece.
Beaufort County is currently engaged in a comprehensive planning process that will affect each of us individually and all of us collectively in the years to come.
Because it involves change to our beautiful Lowcountry home, the planning process will often be emotional.
A first step involves defining a vision for how the county should grow. This vision should take into account environmental, economic, and social factors, as well as be respectful of private property rights.
If we can’t arrive at a clear vision from which to move forward, we will end up with a muddled process and achieve planning by default.
If that happens, planning will be driven by past and future decisions of the S.C. Department of Transportation, the Beaufort-Jasper Water and Sewer Authority, selected special interests, and piecemeal regulation of future planning staffs and county councils (in that order.)
Beaufort County has an excellent planning staff, and its consulting firm, Land Ethics Inc., is conscientious and professional.
However, except for the dubious idea of raising our taxes so that our major roads can be widened to five lanes, I have yet to hear our elected leaders talk about a vision.
Today and tomorrow this column will examine two different approaches to planning to try to help us all.
Sea Pines
Charles Fraser’s Sea Pines Plantation represents one vision. Begun in the late 1950s, Sea Pines defined the pattern of development that now characterizes Hilton Head Island and much of the built environment of Beaufort County.
In addition to the many developments on Hilton Head and Daufuskie islands that came after Sea Pines, Fripp Island, Bray’s Island, Dataw Island, Callawassie Island, Spring Island, Colleton River, Moss Creek and Sun City are some of the developments in Beaufort County that have copied Mr. Fraser’s formula of private enclaves with world class golf courses, landscaping, and amenities.
The economic impact of these developments has been tremendous.
The capital invested has made our county one of the most affluent in the state. People moving into these "plantations" contribute to enrich our community and better our quality of life.
Jobs are created not only behind the gates but outside as well. Bankers, lawyers, doctors, architects, engineers, contractors, utility companies, politicians, and service industries benefit tremendously from the coastal development of the past 35 years.
The plantations are expertly maintained and beautifully landscaped. They have taught us a great deal, particularly with regard to how development relates to wetlands and other sensitive areas.
But not countywide
However, it would not be practical to utilize their planning methods on a countywide basis for a variety of environmental, economic, and social reasons.
Environmentally, the low densities utilized under these methods are extremely consumptive of land.
Also, because commercial, civic, and residential uses are highly segregated and spread out, an automobile is mandatory for survival.
Such automobile dependency with its associated transportation system has proven increasingly unfriendly to the environment.
Economically, these methods require great capital investment due to the heavy road and utility costs associated with spreading infrastructure over large land areas. Because of the costs, only the affluent can typically afford to live in these communities.
And generally the only organizations that can afford to build and maintain these developments over the long run are Fortune 500 companies like Union Camp, International Paper, Alcoa Aluminum, and Del Webb.
Problem of exclusivity
Perhaps the most important arguments for avoiding conventional methods in planning Beaufort County are not environmental or economic, but social.
The fundamental problem with these planning methods is they tend to be exclusive rather than inclusive, creating situations which inevitably lead to friction between people.
For example, in a development that promotes privacy and exclusivity, every time a house is built and a family moves in, the development becomes less private and less exclusive.
In the long run, the people who moved into such a development in the early stages feel any newcomers will violate their privacy.
They begin to fear growth and often become what is referred to as a Nimby (Not In My Back Yard), a Cave (Citizen Against Virtually Everything), or a Banana (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).
Thus, you hear ever louder cries for controlling, limiting, or stopping new development.
To some, the symbol of exclusivity is the security gate.
A gate is really nothing more than an expensive marketing tool designed to make the prospective buyer or property owner feel important.
To a lesser extent, it appeals to one’s fear of people unlike themselves. This is unfortunate because marketing by means of snobbism and fear of others runs counter to the spirit of southern hospitality and can perhaps be seen as undemocratic and therefore un-American.
I want to emphasize that I do not suggest people should be prohibited from building exclusive developments (provided taxpayers don’t have to subsidize the training of their workers or pay to widen all the roads leading to their front door).
I simply suggest that Beaufort County avoid using planning methods that promote exclusivity at the expense of neighborhood and community.
Tomorrow’s column will examine a different approach to planning that may be more appropriate as a vision for the county’s future.
VINCE GRAHAM
Vince Graham is the founder of Newpoint, a traditional walking neighborhood on Lady’s Island, and a partner in the Graham Co., which is pursuing approval to develop I’On in Mount Pleasant.