Guest column: Why Hilton Head should stop plans for new USCB campus
The University of South Carolina Beaufort-Tax Increment Financing project is heading for final approval, lacking only approval of the Design Review Board and the final signing of the contract.
This is occurring despite the fact that prior approvals by the Planning Commission and the Town Council were based on crucial data that were simply not true. Critical details are given below that should have invalidated these approvals, but presentation was stymied by intransigent committee members who were not interested in permitting the presentation of the truth.
Where do we go from here?
A Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Hilton Head Island and the University of South Carolina board of trustees was executed on March 31. According to the wording, this is not a final contract but an understanding that they were "assigning assurances to each other so that each may proceed with actions and understandings ... and it is anticipated that an additional agreement or agreements may be necessary to further clarify and memorialize the details. ..."
The document also states that the parties may proceed in good faith, but "if the town determines that it is not feasible to proceed with the details ... or any matters in connection therewith, the town shall have no liability under this agreement."
Thus, for many valid reasons of deliberate omission of details and facts, the town does have the ability to abrogate this not-yet-fully-consumated agreement.
A number of valid reasons exist for the town to terminate this proposal, including the following:
Some opined that it's inappropriate and fiscally irresponsible to spend local tax dollars for a tax-exempt, state-owned obligation. This need not be rehashed.
However, several even more cogent reasons exist to reject this project. These relate to the adverse effect of the project on the already overburdened Sea Pines Circle area traffic infrastructure, and the absolutely ridiculous cost of the project.
Unsurprising to south-end residents, traffic on major local streets and the circle has finally been officially judged non-compliant with the requirements of the town's Land Management Ordinance. Despite this, town development personnel argued that the planned USCB buildings will actually reduce traffic -- though not resolve the LMO violations, just make them less bad. They also admit that no contemplated expensive traffic mitigation plans will cure the non-compliance. Their argument that USCB improves traffic, as they must know, is simply not true.
Traffic projections by the consultants were based on national data that are obviously not applicable to the local situation, producing a false premise as the basis for their conclusion. Town officials have been incredibly resistant to admitting this or permitting the truth to be presented. Why?
A national traffic manual that estimates traffic generation by combining data from several community colleges has been used for their predictions. But instructions warn not to generalize from the data because they were taken from only a few, mostly urban schools. Several were served by abundant public transportation, which obviously reduces auto commuting. Certainly, there's no local public transportation to reduce car use for commuting, nor is there nearby urban housing to enable access by walking.
Furthermore, hourly projections of the "traffic expert" include traffic attributed to cars entering and exiting during the nighttime hours when the school will be closed. Yet, these inapplicable data are foisted on our residents and representatives as sanctified dogma. They're false and considerably underestimate vehicular traffic at peak times. Why does town staff insist these false data are true?
Town staff continues to argue that, if USCB isn't constructed, zoning would permit twice the construction and traffic generation. That was true, but only until about a year ago when the town purchased the property. Since then, the town has the option of permitting any use from zero to full zoning. If the town sells the property, it can encumber the deed with conditions restricting use and density for any future buyer. Another false, misleading argument.
Then, there's the scandalous cost of this project. TIF funding of $26 million is approved for what has been designed as college classroom space for 200, at a per-capita cost of $130,000 per student. Sound like a lot?
A local, 1,800-student high school has just been constructed at an all-inclusive (all equipment, computers, etc.) cost of $68 million. Unlike the USCB building, high schools also include a large gymnasium, auditorium, stadium, laboratories and other sports facilities, etc. -- expensive items not part of the USCB project. The cost for comparable classroom space was about $30,000 per student.
Why should USCB classroom space cost four times comparable construction? Why should these hidden facts be a surprise? The data are in the public domain. Why have committee procedures restricted the presentation of these data, resulting in these facts never being revealed to the public or those making the decision? Is this how town staff and elected councilmen work for the public?
True, it's only money. But, it's your money.
Systematic suppression of free exchange of information produces adverse consequences. The USCB project is a $26 million boondoggle. Can the citizens of Hilton Head condone and permit this fiasco to proceed?
Karl Engelman is a retired (emeritus) professor from the University of Pennsylvania and a longtime Hilton Head Island property owner and resident of Sea Pines.
This story was originally published December 30, 2015 at 8:41 PM with the headline "Guest column: Why Hilton Head should stop plans for new USCB campus."