Thursday, August 14, 2014
Why is Mount Pleasant Waterworks seeking to get in competition with private plumbing businesses to repair sewer lines or water lines that run between the private residences or private businesses, and where it connects to the water meter or the main sewer line?
Anything on the outside of the water meter belongs to the water department or sewer department anyway and is their responsibility to keep them in good working order without additional cost.
Donít understand why the plumbers arenít complaining. Maybe we donít have enough plumbers.
A good enterprise opportunity? The water department or SCE&G seems to think so, or maybe they believe we are good marks.
Back in history, there used to be ďorangeburgĒ pipe that was constantly breaking or being blocked by tree roots, but since heavy-wall PVC, there are relatively little sewer problems or water line problems other than old mainlines, rusting iron pipes. Residence problems are individuals putting things down residential sewer pipes to cause private pipes to stop up.
Household residential water lines generally donít have breaks unless contractors break them during construction projects.
Under the current proposal, at $4 a month for 12 months, thatís $48 a year for water or $96 a year for water and sewer if I understand the proposal.
I have lived in my home for 10 years, that would be $960 I would have paid for not having the first sewer or water problem between property line and house.
Extended warranties are not generally recommended as good investment choices. People need to do the math for their own situation.
How much have you spent repairing water or sewer lines in your house or up to where they join the mainlines on your street? Is this something government services should get into, being competitive with private businesses, taking business from the private entrepreneur? Governments are not known as good business managers for either cost or efficient service.
Something to think about.
Please let me add my name to the list of those who are sorely disappointed that former Mayor Cheryll Novak Woods-Flowers was only mentioned in your 50th Anniversary Edition timeline. While I no longer live in Mount Pleasant, Iíd love to receive a copy of this edition of the newspaper, as I have not seen it.
I feel badly for Cheryll, as she was a fine mayor who held all of Mount Pleasantís residentsí interests at heart.
I hope that you will publish an apology and a special article about Ms. Woods-Flowersí tenure as Mount Pleasantís mayor. I miss the Moultrie News and will have to subscribe, I suppose. If you do the right thing by her, that is.
Jane Custer Griffin
There has been much emotional back and forth between the two sides of Mount Pleasantís Coleman Boulevard planning (CRAB) debate. An all-out building moratorium is never going to happen. On the other hand, the Chamber of Commerce is telling officials that if they make any zoning changes or add a public design review check then investors will abandon Mount Pleasant and the economy will suffer ó also not going to happen. Both sides, and particularly town council and Mayor Page, need to realize that there is middle ground to be struck for the best interests of all involved.
If you think Coleman should stay the way it is, accept the fact that the CRAB is not going away. If you worked on the CRAB, donít be so defensive about any criticism.
The CRAB should be viewed as a working document subject to tweaks and improvements. Remember, the smart growth/town center planning movement is still young and was even newer at the time the CRAB was written, which means lessons are being learned from similar experiments around the country as these development principles are carried out. Opponents of denser development should recognize that land owners do have property rights that the town must respect.
However, those who say any changes to the code amount to a taking, must acknowledge that the CRAB in itself was a huge upzoning for your property that you didnít previously have. Understand that future changes to the CRAB may be a result of how its implementation has negatively impacted otherís property rights.
To town council and Mayor Page, be thoughtful on this issue and consider all opinions so that you can strike the right balance. Iím sure itís frustrating to hear so much opposition to plans that have gone through public hearings, but that doesnít mean that those opinions are any less worthy. There are no ďnaysayersĒ or ďpeople who donít get itĒ or ďvocal minoritiesĒ in this case. You only get one shot at major development issues like this one, so take the time to get it right so that everyone is a winner down the road. There is much to be done. Make the necessary investment in design review staff/process and create more public engagement. Improve design standards so that new taller buildings do not equal ugly buildings. Have an office in the planning department where the public can drop in and see what is on the table and become involved.
This council can either seize its leadership role to actually become a regional leader in urbanization that Councilman Carrier wants it to be or it can miss this large opportunity and go down as the council that made Mount Pleasantís old core a mess through ill-advised development and design.