Back in civics class, we learned governments are supposed to do their work in public. Decisions are not supposed to be done by popularly-elected officials who sneak around in backrooms to keep regular people from having a real say in decisions funded by tax dollars.
Doing things in secret is just plain wrong. It’s against the style of government that Americans picked when they shrugged off the British 250 years ago with a declaration of independence that was heard around the world.
Unfortunately, the city of Charleston seems to have forgotten how city government is the platform for elected representatives to work in the light of day on behalf of the people. Doing business in public also allows the people who pay for government to hold officials accountable and make sure they’re making decisions in the public interest.
So it’s hard to believe Charleston City Council rushed to vote unanimously Feb. 10 to approve a last-minute proposed ordinance that first saw the light of day in a committee meeting five days earlier. At the Feb. 10 council meeting, two public voices cautioned about the ordinance, only to be ignored by council members who, at the obvious behest of Mayor William “Backroom Billy” Cogswell, narrowed their blinders, didn’t talk about the issue and voted to move forward with it.
What this proposed ordinance does is take away a lot of public scrutiny from proposed building projects being pushed by the city in areas off the peninsula. The ordinance essentially removes its own Design Review Board from chiming in on city-led development projects — which curbs public input from regular citizens in more ways than one. More shockingly, the city claims — and we don’t think this is legal — that the ordinance is in effect now, not after a traditional second or third reading by council. One way or another, this process with this ordinance is abnormal — and voters should demand sunshine.
Brian Turner, president and CEO of the Preservation Society of Charleston, calls this rammed-through ordinance to exempt city projects from review by a design committee to be a solution in need of a problem: “Put plainly, council has elected to exempt itself from the same review it requires of all business owners and developers in these areas with no real public discussion.”
Even more disturbing is how the city’s planning commission — another agency council members appoint — weighed in against the proposed ordinance after the first reading, saying it was shocked at how city council jammed through the ordinance.
Turner noted in a newsletter to his members, “While there is always room to improve efficiency in the design review process, limiting the board’s oversight is short-sighted. Exempting only public projects sends the message to our community that government itself lacks confidence in the views of its own appointed expert commissions. Transparency and public review are essential for ensuring that new designs fit into local contexts.”
City council members need to undo their nefarious Feb. 10 action, explain the real reasons they pushed through the ordinance and then put the whole mess through the regular, deliberative process. To do otherwise is a hard slap in the face to anyone who cares for good governance.
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.