L
E T T E R S T
O T
H E E
D I T O R
APRIL
24 , 2008
Downtown
Darlington the best place for
courthouse facility
The Courthouse standing in the midst of the Public Square no longer
meets the needs of the County. Built in 1965, it replaced another
structure that had outlived its usefulness and fell victim to
the wrecking ball. Whether prompted by a fire or the need for
more space, the cycle of replacing the Courthouse is nothing new
and has taken place a number of times since 1785.
What seems different this time is the fact that some county officials
are proposing not only that the Courthouse be relocated away from
the Public Square and the city center which grew up around it,
but that it be rebuilt outside the city limits of the County Seat,
namely on an area on Harry Byrd Highway behind the Detention Center.
State law includes language that ensures such a radical move cannot
be accomplished easily. First of all, it states that the Courthouse
must be located within the corporate limits of the County Seat.
Secondly, it indicates that should anyone wish to relocate the
Courthouse, a third of the qualified electors must sign a petition,
and if this is accomplished a referendum must then be held in
which two-thirds of the qualified electors must vote for the relocation
if it is to succeed. Not just two-thirds of those voting in the
referendum, but two-thirds of all the registered voters in the
County.
Failing this approach, the County could ask the City of Darlington
to annex the Detention Center and the surrounding property. Unfortunately,
this area is not contiguous with the existing city limits, and
the property owners in the interlying area would also have to
petition the City to come in. The City would then have to agree
to the request and annex the area by ordinance.
Obviously, the City would not be highly motivated to undertake
this process knowing full well that the Courthouse would be relocated
to the newly annexed location.
A third approach might be to seek a legal opinion that would allow
the relocation of the Courthouse by calling it something else,
such as the “Courthouse Annex.” I think that this
type of approach would be fraught with difficulties and could
result in a legal nightmare for both the City and the County.
You cannot remove the court structure from a courthouse and continue
to call it a “Courthouse.” To build a new Courthouse
and call it by any other name is an end run strategy that is highly
questionable, to say the least. To me, if it looks like a duck,
walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it’s a duck.
It has been suggested that it would be easier to transport defendants
from the Detention Center to a nearby location than it would be
to bring them downtown. The real problem, however, is not the
distance from the Detention Center to the Courthouse, but the
ability to separate these people from the public, from jurors,
and from witnesses, and to prevent their escape.
It has been pointed out convincingly by experts that the present
Courthouse lacks the state of the art facilities that are needed
in a post 911 world, and clearly a separate, secure entrance must
be constructed to receive prisoners and to introduce them safely
into the courtroom. Those facilities will be expensive, and will
have to be constructed regardless of whether they are located
50 yards or five miles from the Detention Center.
In addition, it should be pointed out that the footprint of a
Judicial Center in this area could very well exceed the limits
of the county owned property and require additional acquisition
costs both now and in the future.
Carter, Goble, and Lee, the consulting firm that was hired by
the County to perform a feasibility study and to calculate the
cost of relocating the Courthouse, estimates that it would cost
approximately $700,000 to acquire the land necessary to construct
a new facility on the North side of the Public Square. They suggest
that the present Courthouse be refitted to provide more space
to non-judicial departments such as the Auditor, Treasurer, Planning,
and Tax Collection.
The County could save a tremendous amount of money by constructing
a smaller, scaled down facility that would benefit from the proximity
of the old structure, and the new facility could be expanded as
needed in the future. The added expense of constructing a totally
stand-alone Courthouse versus a scaled down facility on the Square
makes the acquisition costs pale by comparison.
Several years ago, a committee was appointed by Mrs. Anne Warr,
then chairperson of County Council, to provide recommendations
to Council concerning the need for more space within the existing
Courthouse. The committee was to also address new security requirements.
This committee has worked hard and has done a thorough job in
fulfilling its mission, and we should be grateful for their efforts.
City officials have met with this group and have been given the
opportunity to offer their opinions.
The City commissioned its own study and presented its findings
to the committee. The study concluded that the removal of the
existing Courthouse would have a huge negative economic impact
on the City and could possibly create a disastrous downward economic
spiral that could devastate the Downtown.
The committee’s final report is due to be presented to the
County Council on May 6. I am satisfied that their recommendation
will be fair and unbiased. When it comes, however, it will be
up to the County Council to make the final decision.
The City’s position is clear. We favor the construction
of a new facility on the North side of the Public Square and we
feel that the economic argument justifies our opinion.
We also feel that the history and the tradition that has kept
the Courthouse on the Public Square should be respected by those
we have elected and entrusted to make this critical decision.
Tony Watkins, Mayor of Darlington
TOP
Citizen
voices concern over property tax policies
Dear Editor,
Unfortunately, in 2006 I didn’t pay one of my many property
taxes As time went by, and it was time to start getting the Certified
letters (taxpayers money), the stobbs in the yard (taxpayers
money), it was time to pay 2007 taxes....yes, it was my fault
because when I didn’t pay the 2006 taxes and owed the 2007
taxes, lo and behold, you have to pay both taxes, and you couldn’t
pay the 2006 tax with a check.
Now, somebody has paid the 2006 tax for me. I paid $800 for the
1970s mobile home that was in dire need of repair in the 1990s,
and lo and behold again, it is appraised for over $5000, and it’s
sitting on land that is another tax notice. Did anyone call me
and ask me to look at the inside of the mobile home? No.
The same thing happened with my home. I live in a very unusual
looking house. It’s not a mobile home, but it’s a
nice house in a beautiful setting. Guess who I found out that
paid my taxes? Why, Pamela Osbourn did....and how do I know
this? Well, she told me so when I called and asked her about the
letter that I got that said that I would probably have to pay
rent if I continued to live there if I didn’t pay my taxes
I wonder how many people that are on fixed incomes that didn’t
or couldn’t pay their 2005 taxes or 2006 taxes have lost
their property because they couldn’t come up with both taxes
at the same time? Wonder how many tax payer stobbs they
got in their yards or Certified letters?
And by the way, did you ever wonder why there is so much trash
piled up around Darlington that people have thrown away? Maybe
those same people that have a fixed income couldn’t afford
to buy those yellow bags that no other county that I know of have...greedy
greedy greedy....Oh well, that’s another story
Is there anyone else out there in Darlington County that understands
what I am talking about? Have you lost your property to
somebody that paid your taxes for you because you couldn’t
pay both taxes at one time? Are you paying rent to somebody that
bought your property? Why can’t this be changed, especially
for the people that can’t afford to lose their property?
Me? I will pay mine, I feel sorry for those that can’t...
Just a concerned Citizen voicing an opinion.
TOP
Light
pollution a problem with a solution
Dear Editor,
Imagine getting into your car or truck and heading down the highway
and find out you’re getting 33% less gas mileage than advertised.
Or you find out that a pipe is leaking and you’ll pay more
on the water bill than you normally average per month.
Maybe your heating/cooling unit is having a problem and your electric
bill will be 1/3 higher.
Without hesitation, you’ll quickly have the problem corrected!
But consider this. At night we see the bright skies caused
by excessive and misdirected outdoor lighting. This
“skyglow” lights up the bottom of birds, planes, and
clouds, and is known as light pollution, and it needs fixing.
But, you say, we can’t touch or feel light! True,
but it’s still wasted.
Just how much waste is involved? Using info from the
U.S. Energy Information Agency, the International Dark Sky Association
estimates that about 1/3 of all outdoor lighting at night is wasted,
which costs taxpayer dollars and business owners $8 billion to
$10 billion dollars a year.
But there’s more. The wasted light means our irreplaceable
natural resources are forever lost at the rate of over 30
million barrels of oil and over eight million tons of coal each
year--just to light up the sky! In other words, if light
doesn’t hit its intended target, it’s absolutely wasted--pure
and simple.
Also, this waste releases 40 million tons of CO2 into our
atmospher annually, contributing to global warming.
The good news is, of all the different types of pollution, light
pollution is the easiest to remedy. And it won’t take
a government superfund to do it. All we have to do is use the
right amount of light for the task; shield our outdoor lights--fully
shielded that is--and aim them below horizontal to keep the light
on our property so as not to shine light into the eyes of
motorists, pedestrians, or a neighbor’s bedroom window.
And finally, turn off lights that aren’t needed for security.
So when you se the bright skies at night, remember, you’re
observing th total waste of energy, money, and natural resource
in the form of light that’s heading to the far reaches of
the universe. But now you know how to fix it.
Francis Parnell, Member: Citizens for Responsible Lighting,
Darlington
TOP
