Cruise ships and putting lipstick on pigs, Charleston Mercury, May 16, 2012 (online), editorial.  

The cruise ship debate continues with vigor, and we welcome the opportunity to connect some dots and stress the importance of the site of the new terminal. However, we scratch our heads when we read about “cruise ship opponents” in various local media. Those concerned about the cruise ships come at the issue from many different and valid perspectives. They are not “opponents”; rather, they are “critics” and are not monolithic. Many want cruise ships, but under varying circumstances. This is not an “either/or” issue for most citizens.

With a recent op-ed in the Post and Courier, Historic Charleston Foundation has put on a muscular attitude as a critic, joining others in this noble effort. In particular, we urge all critics to find out why the S.C. State Ports Authority is so bold to call a proposed terminal site at Columbus Street a “non-starter.” This is the big game changer issue because putting lipstick on a pig does not change the fact that it is a pig. The current and S.P.A.-proposed new terminal will keep the “pigs” in clear view of those on the harbor, in the Holy City or from other vantage points in Mt. Pleasant or James Island. The massive ships dominate the city skyline from the current terminal. They do not seek a ransom as did Blackbeard in 1718, but the cruise ships overshadow Charleston’s subtle character and seek tribute in the form of a new terminal that is not located far enough up the Cooper River toward the Ravenel Bridge.

We have heard many times about Charleston’s history as a port city, but the masts and rigging of vessels of yesteryear cannot be compared to the footprint of the chunky mega “funships” of today. The ships of olden days had no loud speakers and waterslides.

In terms of geography, as shipping changed, wharves moved north and evolved into the multi-terminal system of today. At the same time, waterfront real estate prices have increased exponentially. The leisure shipping element is small compared to the whole, but it makes a big splash in the public eye because of where the passengers embark and debark; hence, the issue is really about the placement of the terminal.

As we have said many times, we could handle a substantial number of visits from cruise ships if we placed the terminal in the right locale. Tourists could disperse from a terminal near Columbus St. in more than one direction and by a variety of transportation methods, avoiding the choke point on East Bay St. and letting the greater community market amenities to cruise passengers instead of making it all about immediate gratification within a stone’s throw of our fragile downtown neighborhoods. CARTA buses or a special train could bring passengers to a variety of places, particularly a nifty spot on Concord St. in close walking distance of The Market. Others might take cabs or buses to North Charleston or Mt. Pleasant; some might walk to new attractions built on the Eastside for cruise passengers.

Recall that the announcements from the cruise ships are truly obnoxious and even saying farewell to loved ones at funerals is no longer sacrosanct. Any graveside service at St. Philip’s, the Huguenot Church, St. Stephen’s and others will run the risk of loud squawking interfering with hearing prayers from the clergy.

Cruise critics are not giving up, and they are not a small sector of the society. After all, some of those critics include this newspaper, the Post and Courier, the City Paper, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Preservation Society of Charleston, Historic Charleston Foundation and the Coastal Conservation League. Eventually, cooler heads will see the positive results that would come from the key policy shifts suggested by those who want Charleston to prosper and retain its historic character.