Although the Port's Authority Development Committee seems to have taken a softer approach to Port Royal's participation in the future of the 22-acre port property, it just hasn't gone far enough. Last week Port Royal officials were told to forget their plans for the port because the Port's Authority would be the deciding agency. Tuesday, Port Royal was told to continue with its plan. Port of Port Royal director David Schronce told the council Tuesday night that the Ports Authority is in no way telling the town not to go after a request for proposals. He was merely explaining actions the authority will take.
At the first organized meeting of the Port's Authority Development Committee on Tuesday in Charleston, committee Chairman Harry Butler said the goal is to develop the port property in the most profitable way possible, and as quickly as possible.
Port Royal Town Manager Van Willis contends that the community's plans won't be far off base from Port's Authority's plans, but experience says that selection of consultants will have a huge impact on the future of the property.
A goal of both groups and the governor is to get the property on the tax books so that town, county and state residents get some benefit from taxes that will be paid.
While the Port's Authority may be looking for the most profitable solution for the agency, it may not necessarily jibe with what Port Royal residents think is best or most profitable for the community.
The Ports Authority's idea, too, reflects the notion that the state should be in the real estate management or landlord business, which it is now.
As the newest member of the authority's board and chairman of its Development Committee, Butler may be sincere in his desire to get the most profitable deal for the authority (the state). He may do a commendable job, but thus far the authority hasn't done a good job. The port lost more than $50,000 last year on shipping operations. It didn't bring in much money from leases to at least four private businesses that operate at the port.
Dockside Restaurant, for instance, pays $300 a month to rent its space. The rate goes to $500 a month in 2004 and increases to $2,200 a month in 23 years. Others pay a higher rate, but still get a sweetheart deal, according to some critics. For instance, Glover Real Estate, which opened its drystack marina last year, pays an annual license fee of 20 percent of its gross revenues under a 20-year contract signed in 2001.
Clearly, the Port's Authority can do better financially than it has with these contracts.
But Gov. Mark Sanford and now the Port's Authority say the land should go to benefit local, county and state taxpayers. Port's Authority is in the port operation business. Some say it should never have been in the land management or leasing business. Once port operations are halted, the Port's Authority shouldn't own or govern the property.
Port Royal should have the sole responsibility and authority to dispose of the land and get it on the tax books. The sales price could go to the state or Port Royal, but the property tax and taxes on personal property inside businesses would go to the county and town.
That the authority's Development Committee indicates Port Royal will have a voice in the decision making is logical. After all, any decision will affect the people who live in the community far more than it will someone who lives in Charleston or other S.C. towns.
Rep. Catherine Ceips, R-Beaufort, has been working on legislation that would allow port operations to cease.
She and other legislative delegation members, especially Sen. Scott Richardson, should ensure that any legislation contains the stipulation that Port Royal, or at least Beaufort County officials, have sole authority to decide on uses for this land.