| Cruise Control Fund |
JANUARY 23, 2012: PRESERVATION SOCIETY OF CHARLESTON POSITION STATEMENT: CRUISE TOURISM LITIGATION
View PDF
AUGUST 2011: PRESERVATION PROGRESS CRUISE TOURISM SPECIAL REPORT
View PDF
1991-1992: CITY OF CHARLESTON V. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY
View PDF
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009: CARNIVAL TO LAUNCH FIRST YEAR-ROUND CRUISE PROGRAM FROM CHARLESTON IN 2010
View
JUNE 25, 2010: SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY LETTER TO THE MAYOR
View PDF
JULY 27, 2010: PRESERVATION SOCIETY OF CHARLESTON POSITION STATEMENT: CRUISE SHIP TOURISM IN CHARLESTON AND RELATED PORT ISSUES
View PDF
JULY 27, 2010: CRUISE SHIP POSITION STATEMENT
View PDF
CRUISE SHIP TOURISM IN CHARLESTON AND RELATED PORT ISSUES
It is the position of the Preservation Society of Charleston that specific steps should be taken to protect the quality of life of the residents of the City of Charleston from the significant economic, social and cultural impacts caused by increased cruise ship traffic at the Port of Charleston. Reasonable, written and enforceable regulations should be put in place to ensure that negative tourism impacts are managed and that the integrity and character of our city is not diminished. We believe that five considerations are utmost in charting an appropriate course:
1. The quality of life of the citizens of the city should be the primary factor in weighing any decisions that are made about the cruise ship industry and the Union Pier property. Tourism and the local economy flourishes when the citizens of the city are pleased with how it is managed.
2. Maximum transparency and public input is essential for ensuring that future plans for the cruise ship industry and Union Pier property consider potential negative impacts before future contracts are signed. Written commitments, timely public release of relevant documents and the use of impartial data (economic impact, traffic, etc.) should be the basis of decision making.
3. Reasonable regulations are the responsibility of the City of Charleston to ensure that the cruise ship industry is managed in the same way that all other tourist-related industries (pedicabs, walking tours, carriage tours) have been regulated. While imperfect, tourism management regulations are an essential tool for minimizing negative social and cultural impacts.
4. Appropriate redevelopment of the Union Pier property should be integrated into the existing fabric of the City of Charleston in order to enhance the sense of place that distinguishes our historic district with appropriately scaled new construction, compatible uses, quality materials, and the protection and preservation of existing historic resources. This should include a reconsideration of the present accommodations overlay as it relates to the property and the final location of a new terminal.
5. Stabilization and restoration of the Bennett Rice Mill façade should not be contingent on any future cruise ship contract or Union Pier redevelopment plan. It is urgent that the at-risk physical condition of this historic facade, owned by the State Ports Authority, be addressed so that this unique piece of industrial architecture can stand as a testament to our collective commitment to the historic legacy of our city. The SPA should consider placing a historic preservation easement on the façade.
In support of these objectives we present to the City of Charleston, the State Ports Authority and to the general public the attached set of “Recommendations for Sustainable Cruise Ship Tourism” that we have prepared for consideration and debate. We believe that these recommendations provide a basis for appropriate action by the City of Charleston and the State Ports Authority to manage cruise ship tourism so that we can protect the quality of life and historic resources of our world-renowned historic city and still derive an economic benefit from the cruise ship industry.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2010: CITY OF CHARLESTON CRUISE SHIP TASK FORCE-FINAL REPORT (DRAFT)
FEBRUARY 22, 2011: CITY OF CHARLESTON CENTURY V 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
View PDF
MARCH 30, 2011: PRESERVATION SOCIETY OF CHARLESTON POSITION STATEMENT: RENEWING THE CALL FOR CRUISE TOURISM REGULATIONS
View PDF
MARCH 31, 2011: RENEWING THE CALL FOR CRUISE TOURISM REGULATIONS AND RESTUDY OF FINAL TERMINAL LOCATION
View PDF
A recent citizen-driven proposal to move the location of a new cruise passenger terminal to the State Ports Authority’s Columbus Street Terminal has revealed the obvious: no neighborhood wants the new terminal within its boundaries. Whether it is the Charlestowne or Historic Ansonborough neighborhood associations urging a location as far north as possible on the Cooper River downtown, or the East Side and Mazyck-Wraggborough neighborhoods hoping that it remains at Union Pier, each of these neighborhoods raises valid and serious concerns about quality of life impacts on their residents. It is unfair that because of a failure by city council to enact reasonable regulations on the size, scale and frequency of cruise ship arrivals and departures in Charleston, our historic neighborhoods along the Cooper River are left to fight among themselves to determine what the “least bad” option is. For this reason, among others, we have nominated Charleston to the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s 11 Most Endangered List.
The unanimous position of our board of directors, released on July 27, 2010, included a call for a reconsideration of the final location for the cruise passenger terminal. The location of this terminal will have a significant long-term impact on the areas in closest proximity to it and to the entire city as well. The State Ports Authority tells us that a Columbus Street Terminal location would raise security issues by mixing cruise and cargo operations. Although this may be a valid point, we are confident that security would be an issue at any location and presumably is a matter that has been reasonably addressed in other communities. We are told by city leaders that unless Carnival cruise ships dock at Union Pier, that old warehouses may stand as spite fences along East Bay Street for years to come. This is a short-sighted view that ignores the market reality that there is greater long-term economic value and local job creation opportunity in private ownership and redevelopment of that property and the restoration and rebuilding of our historic waterfront neighborhoods, which will protect and enhance property values as well.
The request for a restudy of the location of a cruise passenger terminal, and full disclosure of an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of various sites, is not too much to ask of our state and its ports authority. Last year in our position statement we called for maximum transparency. On February 23, 2011 our State Treasurer, Curtis Loftis, requested the same when he asked the State Ports Authority to present a detailed overview of the proposed use of Union Pier including documentation of property values, revenues, expenses and implications for existing operations based on various scenarios which included the sale of the entire property. The Authority’s response was for the treasurer to look at its website, unionpierplan.com. This is not transparency, but a disappointing response that falls short of our expectations for full disclosure of the Authority’s long-term plans.
Until we as concerned citizens of our historic city fully understand the long-term implications of the construction and permanent location of a cruise terminal downtown, until we have accurate economic impact data based on actual history rather than theoretical projections, and until city council imposes reasonable regulations on the size, scale and frequency of cruise ships loading and unloading on our riverbank, there is no reason why any of our residents and neighborhoods should allow the State Ports Authority to decide what is in our best interest. We deserve that our government officials make an intelligent and informed decision after a public discussion through a transparent process.
We should be working together as a city to improve and reinforce the quality of life of all of our historic neighborhoods, and one wonders how cruise ships advance that effort. Without transparency and without regulations, our future remains uncertain and endangered.
APRIL 11, 2011: PRESERVATION SOCIETY LETTER TO MAYOR
View PDF
APRIL 14, 2011: POST & COURIER- CITY COUNCIL SHOULD OPT FOR STRONGER CRUISE SHIP RULES
View PDF
APRIL 14, 2011: POST & COURIER- STRONGER CITY ORDINANCE NEEDED TO MEET CRUISE SHIP CHALLENGE
View PDF
JUNE 13, 2011: LAWSUIT AGAINST PANAMA-BASED CARNIVAL CORPORATION
View PDF
JUNE 13, 2011: PRESERVATION SOCIETY JOINS SUIT TO ENFORCE LOCAL REGULATIONS ON CRUISE SHIPS
View PDF
CHARLESTON, S.C.— The Preservation Society of Charleston has joined with the Historic Ansonborough Neighborhood Association, Charlestowne Neighborhood Association and the Coastal Conservation League as plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed this morning against Carnival Cruise Lines, a Panama-based corporation, to enforce local laws that protect the city’s historic downtown. Filed in South Carolina state court, the legal action contends, in part, that large cruise ship operations in the heart of the city’s historic district run afoul of local zoning ordinances related to use, accommodations, height, viewsheds, noise and signs as well as private and public nuisance claims.
The Society is represented by John A. Massalon, Esq., of Wills Massalon & Allen, LLC. The other plaintiffs are represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center.
AUGUST 16, 2011: THE MAYOR’S ORDINANCE
View PDF
NOW: HISTORIC CHARLESTON FOUNDATION ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
View PDF