The State Ports Authority's proposed container terminal drew sharply mixed reactions at a hearing Thursday, as support from pro-business interests was countered by opposition from North Charleston residents whose neighborhoods would be most affected by the project.

The meeting at the North Charleston Performing Arts Center was the public's first official opportunity to speak out for or against the $600 million, 280-acre project on the south end of ex-Navy base.

About 400 people, mostly supporters based on a show of hands, attended either to learn more about the port expansion or respond to it. As part of the permitting process, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a thick draft study last month analyzing the potential impact the terminal would have on traffic, the environment and residents.

The public can comment on the report through Dec. 19. The Corps of Engineers is expected to finalize the study and issue or deny the permit by next summer.

The SPA's top official said the Navy base expansion is critical to ensure the Port of Charleston can keep growing, support jobs and remain competitive as a major container-handling operation.

"The site we're talking about on the base is in poor condition," said Bernard S. Groseclose Jr., president and chief executive. "It needs a higher and better use. With port expansion, we can take what is essentially a hole in the map of North Charleston and transform it into a positive, productive force in the community that is respectful and supportive of its neighbors."

Backers of the new terminal showed their support by wearing blue stickers that read "Ports = Jobs."

"I support it," said Mark Yodice, a Mount Pleasant engineer. "We need it, and I think they got the right spot, too."

The predominantly black communities near the base property sent residents and community leaders to voice their opposition. The new terminal didn't win any support from Bobby Bennett, a retiree who worked as a heavy-equipment operator on the waterfront for 45 years.

Bennett now lives on Hackermann Avenue, one of several streets currently under consideration as a route for a new access road that would link the new SPA container yard with Interstate 26.

His son Louis, seated by his side, spoke for his father, saying the family opposes the new port because of noise, increased traffic and the effect it will have on property values in the area as new development crops up.

"Many residents . are elderly and on fixed incomes," he said. "These residents cannot afford to pay higher property taxes."

Others, like the Rev. Hattie Hambert with New Francis Brown United Methodist Church, said the SPA's expansion plans would affect an inordinate number of poor minorities.

Others, like Dan Coleman of the Old North Charleston Neighborhood Council, called for more in-depth studies, especially about a new access road and traffic projections. The Coastal Conservation League was "very concerned" about the effect on air quality, said spokeswoman Nancy Vinson.

Speaking for North Charleston, Councilman Kurt Taylor said the city understands that "ports equal jobs."

"We also know ports can equal negative impacts for the quality of life for people who live nearby," he said.

Taylor, who took exception to Groseclose's "hole in the map" comment, urged regulators "to impose all reasonable requirements within your authority to minimize those impacts."

The turnout was small compared to a hearing in November 1999, when almost 2,000 people showed up to comment on the SPA's ill-fated Global Gateway terminal on Daniel Island. Community opposition helped kill that much larger project, and state lawmakers directed port officials to focus efforts on the former Navy base.