Yes. I oppose proceeding with the current design, including the Laurel Hill Parkway. I support meaningful improvements to Highway 41 that reduce congestion and improve safety, but I want the County to pursue a solution that protects Laurel Hill County Park, surrounding neighborhoods, and the historic Phillips Community.

My opposition to the Parkway does not mean supporting a return to five lanes through Phillips. Protecting that community’s homes, property, heritage, and connections between neighbors must remain a priority. I will advocate for a transparent evaluation of alternatives that addresses both community preservation and environmental protection, with affected residents participating directly.

Yes. I will vote to delay a construction award or other irreversible commitments for the disputed project until required federal and state permitting reviews and related legal challenges are resolved. The County should not commit taxpayers to substantial construction obligations while fundamental questions about the project’s authorization and environmental impacts remain unresolved.

During that period, the County should continue evaluating alternatives, addressing residents’ concerns, and identifying safety improvements that can proceed independently and lawfully. Any separate work must avoid prejudging the disputed design or undermining protections for Phillips, Laurel Hill, or neighboring communities.

No. I cannot responsibly commit to completing the entire corridor project before evaluating whether that construction sequence is technically feasible, safe, and financially sound. That answer does not change my opposition to the current Parkway proposal.

I will require a public evaluation of a phased approach that advances improvements within the existing corridor while preserving the three-lane section through Phillips. That review should identify independently useful improvements, necessary permit changes, costs, and a defined process for measuring traffic and safety outcomes.

Where feasible, those improvements should proceed and their results should inform subsequent decisions. The County should not assume the Parkway is necessary without demonstrating that need, and it should not use the absence of the Parkway as a reason to impose five lanes through Phillips.

Yes. I will vote to keep all legally available Highway 41 project funds dedicated to the corridor while a long-term alternative without the Laurel Hill Parkway is developed and evaluated.

During Mount Pleasant’s municipal consent debate, some public officials warned that withholding consent would put project funding at risk. Residents deserve a clear explanation of which risks arise from binding funding conditions and which arise from decisions County Council itself controls. Disagreement over a design does not eliminate the corridor’s transportation needs.

I oppose using the prospect of withdrawing or redirecting funding to pressure the Town into accepting the County’s preferred design. If funding can lawfully remain available while alternatives are evaluated, threatening to take it elsewhere would put needed improvements at risk and substitute an ultimatum for the work of resolving legitimate concerns.

I will require a public accounting of each funding source, its restrictions, deadlines, and options for amendments or extensions. Where genuine funding risks exist, the County should explain them accurately and work to preserve the investment.

That investment must serve the whole corridor. Evaluating an alternative without the Parkway must also preserve the historic Phillips Community and address safety, drainage, property impacts, and future traffic. Residents should not have to choose between protecting their communities and retaining funding for necessary improvements.

Yes. Before voting on a construction award, I will require a public review of the itemized budget and a consistent comparison of reasonable alternatives, including options without the Laurel Hill Parkway.

That comparison should disclose construction, property acquisition, utility relocation, mitigation, drainage, maintenance, and redesign costs. It should use the same traffic forecasts and evaluation periods to show expected travel times, service levels, safety performance, and how long each option is likely to meet the corridor’s needs.

Cost and traffic flow alone are insufficient. The review must also explain impacts on homes, historic resources, wetlands, flooding, parkland, pedestrians, and neighborhood connectivity, including how those impacts are distributed among communities. Residents should receive the supporting information

No, the current plan was the result of over 22 designs and many, many meetings beginning in 2017. We met numerous times with all the neighborhoods and the public and were able to incorporate some great suggestions from those meetings which enhance the plan. Some of that is drainage which needs to be improved now, especially along Bessemer Rd. Our plan will improve drainage and run off. We need improvements now. 41 should have been widened 20 years ago when all the neighborhoods were built.

No, we have to obtain permits before we can start construction. We have worked with the permitting agencies to make sure we are properly addressing all issues, especially drainage and retention. The permit from DES has already been approved; we expect the others soon and to begin construction in early 2027. I can’t answer how our legal department will advise us. Another year of delays just increases the cost of the project. I will not vote to move the funding to another 2016 Sales Tax Project approved by the voters unless the project is denied or has increased in cost so much due to delays that we cannot afford it. We need to complete this for all of East Cooper; kicking the can down the road gets us nowhere and there is no other funding source as far as I can see.

No, our traffic engineers have already advised us this would not be possible and our permits would have to be re-submitted, causing further delay and increased costs.

No, we have already considered over 22 alternatives and spent millions of dollars. The compromise was approved five years ago. Further delays are just going to increase the cost and doing nothing is not acceptable.

No, this has already been done in many meetings and discussed in public for the alternative designs and the vote in 2021 was taken afterwards.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, while we need traffic relief, the county’s plan to construct the Laurel Hill Parkway cuts through green spaces, disrupts neighborhoods, and seems to dismiss the concerns of the community.

Yes, executing major construction contracts or spending taxpayer dollars on irreversible site preparation before permits and legal challenges are clear is reckless and short sighted.

Yes, this is basic common sense which our current County Council seems to lack. Let’s measure the results of these improvements before building more.

Yes, protecting these funds ensures that if we pivot away from the Parkway, the money doesn’t get siphoned off or redirected elsewhere in the county. The funds stay dedicated to building practical, long term relief for residents.

Yes, transparency isn’t optional when tax dollars are on the line. The public deserves a breakdown comparing the costs, short term vs. long term traffic relief, and environmental impact of every single design alternative.

Yes, I oppose.

Yes

Yes. I actually prefer Highway 41 to be widened the entire length, from Highway 17 to the Bridge.

Yes

Yes