Questionnaire
The following questions were asked of the candidates. You will find their responses below.
(Howard Chapman and Mike Tinkey did not respond directly to the questionnaire but did provide comments regarding the Highway 41 project. Their responses can be found at the end of the questionnaire.)
1) Do you support any version of Alternative 7 for the Highway 41 expansion project, including the current “Road to Compromise” proposal
Daniel Brownstein: No, I do not. Alternative 7, or the “Road to Compromise,” will be disastrous for our environment, will cut neighborhoods in half and will negatively impact Laurel Hill Park. It is also incredibly expensive. That money could be used to fairly compensate the Phillips Community for any land taken for a widening project and could be put to use for additional improvements to the community.
Mark Flannery: I do not support any version of the Alternative 7 for the Highway 41 expansion project, and certainly not the Road to Compromise proposal.
Laura Hyatt: **
- Candidate responded with the additional clarifying language on 11/3/23: "opposed to road to compromise: yes
With the Highway 41 project not being a Town project, I’m not sure how much influence we will have. I will say that I am not for any plan that impacts a great number residents or negatively impacts the environment including any destruction of the Laurel County Park. The Army Corps of Eng. Is accessing the latest plan and I am not sure what they will decide. Often I do not agree with their decisions as I am more inclined to avoid ever filling in wetlands. I would hope that they would encourage the least impactful route.
Jake Rambo: No. I have been against this since it was first proposed. The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. The idea that someone is going to get off of Hwy 41, get onto the new road through the park, and then get on to Dunes West Blvd to then get back onto Hwy 41, does not make much sense to me.
Perry Rourk: No
Shari Sebuck: The only version of anything I support for Hwy 41 expansion is taking the road straight down Hwy 41. Right now that option is a 4-3-4 configuration.
2) Do you support any future widening of Dunes West Boulevard or further widening of Park West Boulevard?
Daniel Brownstein: I will only support the widening of Dunes West Boulevard or Park West Boulevard if the neighborhood supports it due to traffic levels in the future. I do not believe those roadways should be widened with the intention of creating a 41 bypass to 17.
Mark Flannery: I do not support any modifications to Dunes West Boulevard or Park West Boulevard.
Laura Hyatt: I don’t support allowing the widening of the road in Dunes West for this project and I believe that the latest road improvements in Park West have been a success. I don’t think we need more at this time, especially for the hwy 41 project.
Jake Rambo: My understanding is that it has always been part of the master plan of Park West and Dunes West to have both boulevards be 4 lanes. However, it certainly is not an alternative to fixing issues on 41.
Perry Rourk: No
Shari Sebuck: No. I do not support any future widening of DW Blvd or PW Blvd. If they would just get the task done of widening Hwy 41, it would be unnecessary anyway.
3) Do you support any Highway 41 expansion proposal that includes adding a new road between Highway 41 and Park West Boulevard through Laurel County Park?
Daniel Brownstein: No, I do not.
Mark Flannery: I don’t support any Highway 41 expansion that adds a new road between Hwy 41 and Park West Boulevard.
Laura Hyatt: I mentioned above that I am not for putting a road through any part of the park.
Jake Rambo: No
Perry Rourk: No
Shari Sebuck: No. I do not support any alternative that would go through Laurel Hill County Park for a number of reasons.
● It’s absolutely unnecessary!
● It would add over $20 million dollars to the price tag – I’’ve even heard upward of $30 million.
● It would destroy over 22 acres of wetlands and natural barriers critical to protection of our neighborhoods during floods, hurricanes, or natural disasters.
● It was GIFTED to the County in a Conservation Trust for Conservation purposes. To me, this Trust is as good as honoring personal property rights.
● It would destroy rich tradition and history of the very settlement community “they” say they are trying to preserve. This land was all part of the Phillips Community from centuries ago. There are Civil War buttons verified from soldiers’ uniforms that have been found in this land from casual hikers who look for historical artifacts.
4) It appears that part of the current “Road to Compromise” design will require the use of land and the alteration of roads owned and controlled by the town of Mount Pleasant. As such Charleston County will require the consent of the Town to move forward with the current design. Would you oppose granting these rights to the County, thus forcing them to attempt a taking of the land through eminent domain or a redesign of the “Road to Compromise?”
Daniel Brownstein: I believe the fact that the town must consent is our biggest remaining leverage to change the overall plan and I intend to use it to get everyone back to the table to consider alternative options for S.C. 41.
Mark Flannery: I would absolutely, as a member of Town Council of Mount Pleasant oppose granting any rights to the county which involve altering the roads, parks or any land in order to enable questions 1,2 or 3 above.
Laura Hyatt: I would not give consent to use Mt. Pleasant roads. I would hope for a redesign.
Perry Rourk: Yes
Shari Sebuck: Yes. I would oppose and fight hard for the redesign of the “Road to Compromise” and fight hard against eminent domain. I would also point out that the vast majority of public opinion, over several years of surveys sent to the Statehouse and respective Representatives, opted for this road to go straight down Highway 41. It is appalling to me that a special interest group or lobby in a closed Executive Session can supersede the vast majority of public opinion.
Jake Rambo: Yes. While it is a county project, Mt Pleasant Town Council has the right to pull municipal consent. As a council member, our duty is to the residents that we represent and we must put our residents first.
5) The current “Road to Compromise” design was presented to County Council and voted on without any of the same level of public involvement, comment periods, or years of study and analysis the design team used to ultimately refine the original list of 12 alternatives down to the initially preferred Alternative 1 proposal for Highway 41 expansion. While several other viable new alternatives were proposed by the community to the design team at stakeholder meetings that occurred in the abbreviated outreach period in the wake of the announcement of the “Road to Compromise” proposal, they were summarily rejected by the design team before they could be seriously studied. Would you support the County withdrawing the “Road to Compromise” proposal that is currently under review by the Army Corps of Engineers to allow such new proposals to be considered and to ensure that any newly proposed solutions go through the same rigorous public vetting process as the original 12 alternatives before any new application is submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers?
Daniel Brownstein: Yes, I would support the county withdrawing the current application while other alternatives are examined. I am in favor of a straight shot, and I believe there are ways to minimize any negative impact to the Phillips Community. I am concerned that we are proceeding with a plan that won’t really address traffic on S.C. 41 at great expense to taxpayers and the environment. I think our town leaders need to be more active in this process instead of merely passing the buck by saying it is a county project.
Mark Flannery: Not only would I support withdrawing the Road to Compromise, I would advocate for doing so. I find it puzzling as well as contrary to the interests of the residents of Mount Pleasant, that the current solution, if we can call it that, seems to have been ushered through in a manner that sought less public involvement.
I would also be interested in finding out why this happened, who was behind it and why the design team rejected each proposal without any serious consideration, and why the Road to Compromise was pushed through in a manner that would shelter it from the debate of its merits.
Laura Hyatt:
- Candidate responded with the additional clarifying language on 11/3/23: "Supports new review and design process: yes"
I would want the requests and ideas of the citizens to be fully heard and considered. The town belongs to the citizens and they should always be heard and given the most consideration.
Jake Rambo: Yes. This latest version was rushed through without the same amount of scrutiny as before. The topic needs to be revisited with more ideas brought to the table. In the meantime, the redesign of the intersection of Hwy 41 and Hwy 17 must be prioritized and work started as soon as possible.
Perry Rourk: Yes
Shari Sebuck: YES!! See above answer and concerns in #4. This entire situation has become nothing but political propaganda. The only viable, safe, reasonable solution is to keep Highway 41 a straight road as it has been since the beginning of time. Add to that the importance of this being a State Road Evacuation Route.
——————————————————————————————-
Open ended comments from candidates regarding the Highway 41 project that did not respond directly to the questionnaire.
Howard Chapman: “As you know the widening of Hwy 41 is a Charleston County project and is currently being reviewed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. As such the Town of Mt. Pleasant has no say in the matter. Once we receive a final version from the County we will review it, and work with the affected neighborhoods to come up with the best plan. To do otherwise at this time would be pure conjecture. As an engineer, I`m not into conjecture.”
Mike Tinkey: “Since the HWY 41 project is a Charleston County-funded project on a SC State Road requiring Federal approval and has been through years of vetting, including extensive input from residents and owners, it appears to be rather clear that neither the Philips Community nor Dunes West or Park west would like widened or new roads going through their respective communities so the alternatives are that the alleviation of traffic will be borne by more than one community or none at all.
The Corps of Engineers and other regulatory authorities will have to sign off on any road improvements which involve wetlands on the compromise route before proceeding. I personally would not have designed the Preferred Alternative with a spur through Laurel Hill Park, but the County chose that alternative and only it has been submitted for federal approval. Inquiry directly to the Corps resulted in the answer that this stage does not allow redrawing or altering alternatives. If the Corps finds there is no way to satisfactorily mitigate wetlands damage for the Preferred Alternative, then that would be our chance to get a design more favored by all our neighborhoods.”
