Sunday, Jun. 21, 2009

Developing part of Green Diamond worth considering

A DEVELOPER’S proposal to buy and develop about a third of the old Green Diamond property on the Congaree River deserves serious consideration.

While there still are unanswered questions, the proposal could not only allow for some constructive use of the property that has been the center of much heated debate, but could — in fact, should — end efforts to put an even larger, highly controversial development on the flood-prone land.

Greenville developer Larry McNair Jr. says he has a contract to purchase the 1,400-acre upper section of the 4,600-acre Green Diamond tract. His plan to develop the property was presented at a recent briefing before Cayce City Council. The $80 million project would include more than 1,000 homes plus retail stores, a hotel, a golf course, several lakes and possibly a marina.

We commend Cayce Mayor Elise Partin, elected after voicing her concern about the way the annexation was handled, for insisting this proposal be made in the open. Cayce residents were left in the dark as the council hurriedly annexed about 3,000 acres of the 4,600-acre site in December 2007.

Mr. McNair said he has no plan to build up existing levees to protect the property from the river. “I want to do what can be done the way things are now,” he said.

That’s good news. Many, including this board, have expressed concern about flooding on the Lexington County side of the river if the current levees are disturbed. Environmental and neighborhood groups fought Myrtle Beach developer Burroughs & Chapin’s original plan to build a “city within a city” on the property, arguing it was unwise to build homes and businesses in a flood-prone area.

It’s wise to avoid building on flood-prone land, placing life and limb in peril. That said, if it’s possible to build on a portion of Green Diamond safely, why not? The original investors obviously — and understandably — want to recoup some of their dollars. But Cayce must exercise due diligence and ensure nothing is approved that would place citizens in harm’s way or that might place unnecessary burden or liability on taxpayers.

Under the McNair plan, the golf course would sit in the floodway, the area most prone to flooding. While federal law allows golf courses in floodways, buildings are restricted. Much of the remainder of the 1,400 acres is either on high ground or in a flood plain, where construction is allowed as long as buildings are elevated.

We agree with environmental groups and others who see this plan as far less risky than an attempt to build a much larger development that would include disturbing existing levees or erecting new ones.

It’s been years since Burroughs & Chapin proposed building a mixture of retail, homes and USC research facilities on this land, but the distrust and controversy it stirred up persist. There is even an ongoing lawsuit over the federal flood maps that place restrictions on the property. It’s unclear whether the McNair proposal, if it moves forward, would bring an end to the ongoing legal challenge that seeks to loosen flood restrictions on the property, but it should.

This is an opportunity to heal the raw nerves resulting from this years-long saga. The McNair plan should be given due consideration and, if it can be done safely, should be given the green light. It’s time we moved on.

Get The State newspaper delivered to your home. Click here to subscribe.