South Carolina PingAdd me to the list. | Remove me from the list.
Posted on 08/13/2006 11:47:43 PM PDT by Lorianne
Couple’s proposal to turn their historic property into a subdivision draws fire ___ CAMDEN — Two hundred and twenty six years after American patriots fought British loyalists here, another battle is raging in Camden. This time it’s over the direction of development in the historic town.
At the center of the battle is a 65-acre tract known as Beechwood. Owners Dan and Joanna Beresford want to build a subdivision with more than 100 homes on Knights Hill Road, not far from the Carolina Cup steeplechase course.
The city annexed the property last month, and the developers will ask for a zoning change to clear the way for the project. Opponents say the proposed development will ruin the neighborhood’s gentrified character.
But Beechwood is just one small battle in the war over creeping development as sprawl from Columbia and Charlotte stretches its fingers toward Camden.
The dispute reminds Joanna Craig, executive director of the Historic Camden Revolutionary War Site and a planning commission member, of arguments during the Revolutionary War. The Patriots wanted their voices heard in the development of their new country, she says. So, too, do opponents today.
“It all goes back to the beginning of our nation,” Craig says, “and those things keep coming up.”
In the 1½ years since the Beresfords announced their development plans, vocal opposition has erupted from some of the city’s most affluent residents. Those residents have formed a preservation group, hired a lawyer and retained a public relations firm to support their cause.
Along the way, one developer has dropped out of the project, people have packed City Hall meetings, the Camden newspaper’s opinion page has hosted a war of words, and opponents have launched background investigations into the Beresfords’ newest business partners.
The feud has created awkward moments in the city of 7,000 where people on both sides rub elbows at the country club and on boards of local civic organizations.
Ralph Cantey, owner of Traders of Camden package store, says he has customers who have tried to pin down his position. But, as a business owner, he tries to stay in the middle.
“I can see both sides,” Cantey says, “but it’s an uncomfortable situation.”
‘SPECIAL PIECE OF LAND’
The Beresfords bought Beechwood in 1991, shortly after Dan Beresford retired as an executive from RCA in New Jersey. The Beresfords chose Camden because friends familiar with South Carolina often had spoken of its horse industry and historic charm.
The family fell in love with Beechwood’s large, two-story mansion and its 65 acres, which offered room to ride horses, shoot trap and hunt.
“I saw the property and knew it was a special piece of land,” Dan Beresford says.
A driveway lined with live oaks leads to the house, which can’t be seen from the road. Beechwood is across the street from the Camden Country Club and less than half of a mile from Springdale Race Course, home of the Carolina Cup steeplechase.
Beresford, 69, says he always planned to develop the land, and with his oldest child in college, now is the time.
The Beresfords’ first development partnership fell apart.
Next, they partnered with a family friend of Joanna Beresford.
The couple invited businessman Ted Samaras to invest in the project. Samaras, an international business consultant, recruited George M. Bailey, an Annapolis, Md., developer to join the effort.
The Beresfords, Samaras and Bailey are equal partners in the development. The group will spend about $9 million to ready the land for houses, Bailey says.
Their latest Beechwood development plan calls for 108 homes. The Beresfords plan to build a new house for themselves on the property and sell the Beechwood mansion.
However, the Beresfords’ team must obtain a zoning change to move ahead with its plans.
‘THE WAKE-UP CALL THAT WE NEED’
Meanwhile, opponents continue to make their case against the proposed development.
After the city annexed Beechwood, residents opposed to the development formed Preserve Camden With Responsible Growth.
“It’s the wake-up call that we need to get proactive in the direction this city is going,” says Woody Cleveland, a Camden resident who is on the group’s board of directors.
The group wants to partner with the city to re-evaluate its long-term development plans. Camden is a unique, historic town that should not succumb to rapid development, Cleveland says.
Already, the group’s influence has prompted the City Council to amend its zoning ordinance. The move has delayed the Beresfords’ request for a zoning change.
The proposed Beechwood development is too dense for the area, Cleveland says. A cluster of houses would destroy beautiful, pristine countryside, he says.
Preserve Camden also fears the housing development would increase traffic on Knights Hill Road, which splits the Springdale training areas, Cleveland says. Already, jockeys must wait at a traffic light to access flat tracks and steeplechase courses on either side of the road.
The group has asked for a study to determine how the development would affect traffic. Dan Beresford says the study is in the works.
Finally, Preserve Camden says the Beechwood plan does not match zoning of other properties in the area, and it violates the city’s current long-term growth plan.
“If the city of Camden is going to adopt new urbanism,” Cleveland says, “it needs to be adopted by the city of Camden, not by a whim of a single landowner and his developers from Maryland.”
ATTRACTIVE CHARM
Opponents recognize the lure of money offered for undeveloped tracts of land.
On a recent driving tour, Becky Kline, a local resident, rode past the Camden Training Facility, where trainers teach thoroughbreds to gallop around a quarter-mile track.
Kline, who owns two horses, fears the day could come when the horse industry disappears.
“There’s some concern that one day this will be more valuable as a housing development than a horse-training facility,” she says. “We don’t want to lose some of those things that have made Camden unique.”
Indeed, Camden is rich in history.
It lays claim to being South Carolina’s oldest inland city. A Revolutionary War battle between Gen. Charles Cornwallis’ British army and Baron Johannes DeKalb’s Continental troops was fought a few miles outside town. A Civil War diary written by Camden resident Mary Boykin Chesnut is considered one of the world’s best historical diaries.
After the Civil War, Camden gained popularity with wealthy Northerners who discovered the sandy soil was good for horse racing and the surrounding woods provided plenty of room for fox hunting.
Families with names such as DuPont and Buckley began building big houses in Camden, where they would spend the winter racing horses, hunting and socializing.
Over the years, wealthy families have continued moving to Camden. The tradition of summering in places such as Vermont and Cape Cod continues.
Those families have invested in Camden, helping add things such as a fine arts center that few small towns could support. Many of the town’s wealthy residents believe their longtime interest in Camden has earned them a voice in its direction, and they were outraged when Camden City Council annexed Beechwood against their wishes.
“You’d think the people who’ve put a lot of money into the town would be listened to by City Council,” says Austin Brown, co-chairman of Preserve Camden. “It’s like they were deaf to the people who’ve helped Camden financially over the years.”
‘ELEPHANT IS STANDING BEHIND US’
City Councilman Nick Lampshire says the Beresfords have a right to propose development on their property, and they deserve to be heard by the city.
“I don’t think the council will pass anything that gets to us that is not appropriate for that site,” he says.
Several Preserve Camden members say they realize Beechwood will be developed sooner or later. However, they want to be involved in the decision-making, saying Beechwood’s development could be the catalyst that changes the face of Camden.
Already, Camden is on the cusp of change, Lampshire says:
• The City Council learned Tuesday that a Charleston company intends to develop 850 acres on the outskirts of town.
• In neighboring Lancaster County, the Sun City Carolina Lakes retirement community will bring more traffic to Camden.
• Developers are eyeing 3,500 acres near Lake Wateree about 20 minutes outside town.
Those projects — combined with an expected increase in troops assigned to Shaw Air Force Base in nearby Sumter — will have impact on Camden’s growth, Lampshire says.
He fears too much focus is on Beechwood.
“We’re looking at the mouse, when the elephant is standing behind us,” he says.
‘THEY’VE GONE TOO FAR’
While most in Preserve Camden say they want to help guide the city through impending change, others have resorted to tactics that haven’t been as genteel as the lifestyle they want to protect.
Opponents conducted background investigations into Bailey and Samaras, the Beresfords’ business partners, digging up everything from Samaras’ bankruptcy in the mid-1990s to Bailey’s 2001 arrest for drunk driving.
Bailey and Samaras say those troubles have nothing to do with their ability to develop Beechwood.
“How far are they going to take this? Are they going to want to investigate the people who want to buy houses, too?” Samaras says. “I don’t blame all of Preserve Camden. They’ve got some zealous leaders, and they’ve gone too far on this.”
Beresford says he tries to ignore much of the controversy swirling around his plans. After all, he intends to stay in Camden.
He belongs to the Rotary Club, is on the Kershaw County Fine Arts Center board of directors and belongs to the private dining club Springdale Hall; all of those activities, plus the nature of small towns, bring him in almost daily contact with his opponents.
“They’re free to do whatever they want,” he says. “A lot of what they’ve done is really off the wall. The investigations? That’s ludicrous.
“To me, they want to preserve what they perceive Camden to be. But if you look at their proposals, they won’t do anything for Camden as far as housing needs.”
Opponents have suggested building large houses on large lots at Beechwood and asked Beresford to drop plans for patio homes. Preserve Camden’s Cleveland offered to buy the property so he could build small, five-acre horse farms.
Beresford says his development plan will open a market of affordable, upscale homes for young professionals and older people looking to downsize.
“It’s not as though we’re developing the property and moving to Florida,” he says. “We’re going to live here.”
‘DESIRE TO FIND A COMPROMISE’
Craig, the planning commission member, says now is the time for Camden residents to think about what is best for the city, not for individual property owners. She voted against Beechwood’s annexation.
“I certainly want to make sure we look at every avenue to not only establish a benchmark for today, but to guide where it will be in 10 years,” she says. “This will be a total missed opportunity. In 10 years, there will be total regret if we don’t have some thoughtful planning.”
Already, the community has come together to fight changes it did not want.
In the late 1990s, a corporate landowner tried to develop the historic Camden polo field — the third oldest in the nation — but neighbors managed to place it in a conservation land trust where it is protected from growth.
And, the preservation community has gone to battle with the owners of Sarsfield, a home built by Chesnut, the Civil War diarist. The planning commission shot down a proposal to subdivide the land in 2004, but the issue now is tied up by lawsuits.
The Preserve Camden group says now is the time to write a long-term plan that can protect Camden’s charm while still allowing for growth.
“If structure isn’t developed now, there’s going to always be stress between developers and the community and government,” says Rudy Kohn, a Preserve Camden member. “It needs to be done now and not in 20 years when everything has been developed.
“There is a desire to find a compromise. (Beresford) has a right as a landowner to try to make money. He is trying to work with what he thinks is a good plan, but it is upsetting to many others.”
Figures, the guy from New Jersey wants to turn his new town into the next New Jersey.
My question is if there are better locations which are equally viable but less controversial, or if the Bresford property is the best and only location.
You gotta respect the idea you can do whatever you dam well please with your own property and the idea of preserving something of the past.
Yet, this always leads us down the path of fabianism.
'Best and only'? According to whom? The property owners and those who would buy it, or the local pilot buro?
I can't see a committee of self appointed GOSPLANners telling General Washington what to do with his property - can you?
The property rights of the owners should be respected and upheld by good laws.
I don't think that the property in question is the "best and only", and it is up to the city to prove that it is in order to override the objections of the community. If an equally viable substitute is available that is acceptable to the community, the project should be moved.
The community of course has the option to exercise their votes, and if the controversy is sufficient - perhaps a ballot measure would be enough to settle the issue.
Not In My Back Yard !!!!
'I love this place, it's perfect! Now change!'
Then they can do what they please with THEIR private property, not someone else's.
BUMP
NOT
Canden, NJ
Thanks
Camden is a lovely town.
I hope it not Sumterized.
.....I must admit.....
.....I have showed up at Zoning hearings to voice my opinion, "not in my back yard".....
.....but, in my defense.....
.....I knew what Zoning was in place when I bought my property.....
.....and the surrounding properties had like Zoning.....
.....I have no intention of asking that my land get rezoned.....
.....and I expect those that purchase land around me.....
.....to expect my displeasure if they intend to ask for rezoning after they purchase land knowing of how it's Zoned at present.....
.....just my two cents.....
But the guy did come from NJ.
'Bioshield II'
Legislation Threatens our Freedom
Written by Randi Airola, randiceaj@sbcglobal.net, and John Gowan, jggowan@comcast.net.
Since the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the citizens of the United States have been challenged by elevated alerts predicting bioterrorism. The facts, however, do not support this paranoia. In the only biological attack in our nation’s history our country was assaulted with anthrax spores that originated from a “domestic” source according to the FBI and the White House. We are told that we will not let the terrorists change our lives, but that's exactly what our Government is mandating through legislation.
While the Government attempts to evade detection for misleading the American people in policies abroad, they are diverting their attention, and ours, to new undetectable domestic threats. The intended solutions to bioterrorism and the risk those solutions place on our citizens needs sharp review. In the midst of the diversionary hype our Government is simultaneously indemnifying itself and Biodefense manufacturers against any liability from damages caused by their vaccines or drugs meant to protect us against these new threats, real or not. Compliance will be mandatory.
Senator Burr (R-NC) has introduced a bill titled the “Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005” (S. 1873, aka: “Bioshield II”), co-sponsored by Senators Frist (R-TN), Enzi (R-WY) and Gregg (R-NH). From the title, the intent appears to be for the protection of the American people; however, upon closer scrutiny, this Act is more concerned with protecting the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, it strips the citizens of the United States of their basic human rights. Examining the facts one at a time, S. 1873 shows us the following. The Act:
Provides sweeping immunity to any manufacturer that produces any type of countermeasure from any type of lawsuit stemming from injuries or death that may occur to the recipient;
Provides a Government fund for any person that has been injured or died as a result of any countermeasure taken, with a cap of $250,000.00 per person, per life. If a person becomes permanently disabled, it is unrealistic to believe that this sum will last a couple of years, let alone a lifetime;
Creates a new agency, the "Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency" (BARDA), which will be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and judicial review;
Determines the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to be the sole authority on whether or not a person's injury or death resulted from the countermeasure. The Secretary's decision is final and not subject to judicial review.
So the Secretary authorized to declare a national emergency, would coincidentally be the person who would review and rule on whether or not an injury or death was the result of his/her decision, that would not be subject to judicial review. Such practice may be suitable in an oligarchy but not in a democracy. This is a significant conflict of interest.
Under "Project Bioshield", the Secretary of DHHS, an appointed, unelected official, can declare a national emergency based on intelligence of threats of bioterrorism/pandemics/ epidemics (whether natural outbreaks or bioterrorism), and whether those threats are real or potential. Should that occur, then every American can be forced to submit to whatever countermeasure is deemed appropriate, whether that countermeasure is FDA approved or not. To say the least, this is completely unenforceable. The Bill of Rights cannot logically coexist with such a law.
The "Homeland Security Act of 2002", removes liability for injuries or deaths caused by the smallpox vaccine when it is used as a countermeasure. Currently, the product label with the Wyeth Smallpox vaccine now carries a "black box warning" about potentially fatal dangers to the heart.
The "Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002", proposed changes to the vaccine and drug licensure standards. Under this Act, known as the "animal efficacy rule" (meaning that testing on animals will be deemed sufficient), could be enacted in order to use a drug or vaccine. The true human cost in terms of injuries or deaths will not be known until mass vaccination occurs.
The "Emergency Use Authorization" (EUA) allows the FDA to put into use countermeasures that has either not been approved, or, not approved for their intended use. The EUA has already injected the anthrax vaccine into over 1 million of our military service members under a Department of Defense order. This has resulted in thousands of injured individuals, 21 deaths that are admitted, and hundreds of court-martials which have resulted in felony convictions. A federal judge (Doe v. Rumsfeld) put an end to this mandated illegal practice. If however, S. 1873 is passed, there will be no judicial review.
To ensure compliance to rapid responses, the "Model State Emergency Health Powers Act" (MSEHPA) is an Act which allows Governors to declare an emergency and to utilize the state militia in the control of all roads leading into and out of the cities and the state. It allows the Governor to seize citizens' personal property, to arrest and detain and forcibly examine, vaccinate and medicate citizens and/or their minor children without informed consent. Should death or injury occur during any of this process, any person acting on behalf of the Government would not be held liable.
Taken as a whole or even in part, S. 1873, and the other Acts cited above are a serious threat to our Constitution and to the liberty of all Americans. These Acts are a direct assault on every American's freedom.
To read the full paper with links and references to Senator Burr's staff regarding S. 1873, and all other Acts cited above, by Barbara Fisher, go to:
http://www.nvic.org/2005_11-15_NVIC_Sen%20Burr_BioShield%202_v7.pdf
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/?Page=Article&ID=6134
Stuff changes. Deal with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.