A member of a local citizens group said it and the College of Charleston are at an “impasse” on where the college should build a proposed dormitory.
The relationship between the Community Engagement Council (CEC) and the college has “bogged down” over explaining to the college the importance of adhering to a federal policy on the desecration of burial sites, said CEC member Millicent Brown of Charleston.
The CEC and the college “have not fully argued the question ‘can you have a dormitory on top of a cemetery?’ ” stressed Brown, a retired history professor and member of the descendant community. The college has not been transparent with the Charleston community, she charged.
At issue
The college wants to build a dormitory at 106 Coming St., an address that was once part of an 18th century city-owned cemetery for poor and enslaved people and strangers. The college purchased the land knowing it was once a burial ground.
The CEC, however, wants the college to adhere to a federal policy pertaining to the disturbance of burial sites and consider alternative locations for the dorm.
Because of the tension, Charleston resident Julie Bowling stepped off the 20-member council because she felt it was “window dressing” for the college.
“It was clear the (college) had made up its mind they were not really going to get any discussion from us in regards to whether it was ethical or not to remove the bodies. I feel almost used.”
In a prepared statement that was exclusive to the Charleston City Paper, the college said it is following state law governing abandoned cemeteries and burial grounds. The college said it recognizes that in the federal policy, the preservation of human remains where they are found is often the preferred method for historic burial sites.
“However, after study, consultation and evaluation of project alternatives, preservation in place was determined not to be feasible within the context of the approved residence hall project,” the statement said.
The college said the proposed dorm would affect about one third of “the burial ground, an area that has experienced extensive development over the past two centuries. The remaining two-thirds of the historic burial ground area is currently occupied by private buildings and asphalt parking lots.
“Prior to acquiring the property, the (college) determined that this location represented the most feasible site for much-needed student housing due to its proximity to campus, available open space and the city’s pre-approved zoning for high-density student housing,” according to the statement.
The college created the CEC last fall “to advise on commemoration, memorialization and the respectful recovery and reinterment of any remains that may be encountered (and) not to determine whether the approved project should proceed,” according to the statement. “As a result, the (college) disagrees with characterizations suggesting that there is an impasse.
“Consultation and planning efforts remain focused on ensuring that the history of the site is appropriately honored and interpreted while advancing an important institutional need,” the statement said.
The college “recognizes that some members of the community and some members of the (CEC) oppose any new construction on this site and believe that the land should remain undisturbed,” according to the statement. The college said it remains committed to ongoing dialogue.
St. Philip, Vanderhorst and Calhoun streets border the site. The property is the former headquarters for the YWCA of Greater Charleston.
Brown said the college has not fully and accurately documented the site’s history. “They have misinterpreted the importance of the YWCA by calling it a historic civil rights site,” she explained.
Cost-benefit analysis
The college said it presented a comprehensive research and analysis of alternate sites at the CEC meeting in January. But Brown said hte presentation was not comprehensive.
The four-page analysis concludes that 106 Coming St. is the only site that meets “the minimum density (of beds) required” to make the dorm financially feasible.
The college also studied nine other locations, including its Lightsey Annex residence hall and the Wentworth Street Parking Garage.
The per bed cost at the Lightsey Street annex, which is not used for student housing, is too high, and the site would not provide enough beds, the report said. The parking garage was ruled out because the college does not own it.
The college acknowledged that to place a dorm at 106 Coming St., it would need to obtain city and state approvals, schedule public comment and undergo institutional oversight. The report also mentioned the removal and reinterment of human remains, but it does not estimate how much that would cost. A CEC member said without those cost estimates, the report lacks meaning.
Human remains, CEC members stressed, are not limited to bones and human tissue. Human remains also include soil stained from decomposed human tissue.
Between 4,600 and 12,000 individuals may be in the burial grounds, according to a report prepared for the college. The deceased include poor Whites, Africans newly arrived on slave ships, travelers and orphaned children. The site may also hold the remains of Native Americans.
The college acknowledged in its cost-benefit report that a dorm at 106 Coming St. could “trigger” the rules under a 1990 federal law that details how to return the remains of Native American people to their ancestors.
Brian Harris, chief of the Catawba Nation in South Carolina, told the City Paper the college “needs to cease and desist. They need to put boundaries around that cemetery and put a memorial up.”
Help keep the City Paper free.
No paywalls.
No subscription cost.
Free delivery at 800 locations.
Help support independent journalism by donating today.
