Preservation Society and Coastal Conservation League Comments
National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) collection of GIS images predicting future cruise terminal impacts on Charleston.
New terminal site worth a look
The Post and Courier
Neighbors, preservationists, environmentalists, physicians, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and even the S.C. Supreme Court have said that the cruise industry is making problems for Historic Charleston.
Now the city Planning Commission has joined the chorus. It is a disappointment and a puzzlement that Mayor Joe Riley has said the recommendation is not even worth considering.
In its meeting Monday to consider proposed changes to the city’s Tourism Management Plan, the Planning Commission surprised the audience by voting 8-1 in favor of reconsidering the site for the new State Ports Authority passenger terminal.
Instead of simply approving the plan, the commission added a stipulation: Consider a site farther away from the city’s congested historic district.
It’s a worthy suggestion and one that the mayor and Charleston City Council should examine seriously when the issue is considered on May 12.
The mayor’s deaf ear on this issue has angered residents, who have been saying for years that cruise ships need to be regulated and that the site of a new passenger terminal needs to be moved.
The mayor has contended that complaints about traffic, congestion, air pollution and noise are exaggerated, unfounded and even elitist.
The SPA contends that it has already investigated alternate sites and chosen Union Pier because it works best. But the public has not been privy to that report, and it should be.
Further, if the SPA is to reapply for a federal permit to drive piles for the terminal, providing such a report will likely be required. So why not go ahead and share the information?
City Council needs to stand up for what is in the best interest of the city and its residents. One factor to take into account is that the tourism management recommendations include construction of a second visitors center farther north on the peninsula. A passenger terminal farther up the river might dovetail nicely.
Planning Commission Chairman Francis X. McCann said at the meeting that the city has the luxury of taking a breather on the subject. The SPA’s construction plans are on hold due to a court ruling. Meanwhile, it has become clear that cruise ships have not grown the local economy as the SPA predicted.
During that lull, city residents should expect that an independent, objective, comprehensive study be done on something as important as the terminal site — and that the full study be made public.
The new guidelines regarding cruise ships, if accepted, ask for four things: remote parking for passengers; shore power to cut down on air pollution from ships running their engines while at dock; a head tax to help reimburse the city for expenses associated with cruises; and a strengthening of the regulations limiting the number and size of cruise ships in Charleston.
Those are all reasonable recommendations, and the location of the terminal is every bit as important to the city of Charleston — particularly its historic area. Maybe more so.
Mr. McCann said that earnest negotiations are not too much to ask of the SPA. He also said that it’s time for Charleston’s leadership to concede that there is not a city in the country or in the world that has benefited culturally from having a cruise terminal in a historic area.
The Planning Commission correctly acknowledged the hard work of the many people who contributed to the Tourism Management Plan. That plan offers insightful and helpful ways to protect the city’s livability amid the strains of fast-increasing tourism. Its recommendation to reconsider locating the terminal up the river should be viewed as an enhancement to the larger plan.
The mayor and City Council have so far been cavalier about their constituents’ concerns and have simply accepted the SPA’s option as presented. But they have offered no acceptable reasons not to negotiate with the SPA to ensure that the terminal site is best for the city as well as for the SPA.
The Port of Charleston is seeing an increase in both cargo and cruise ships.
Carnival Cruise Lines announced Monday that it will add five departures in 2016 for its Carnival Sunshine cruise ship. Those voyages will be in addition to departures by the Carnival Fantasy, which calls Charleston its home port.
Meanwhile, at the cargo docks, the port notched a 16.9 percent increase in the number of containers that moved through local terminals in February compared to the previous year, and Jim Newsome – president and CEO of the State Ports Authority – said Monday that he expects the total to top 1 million containers before the end of this fiscal year.
“February container volumes were particularly strong for a short month,” Newsome said following a meeting of the SPA’s board of directors. “Our import gains are reflective of a strengthening U.S. economy and population growth across the Southeast, while manufacturing in our state and region bolsters our export business. Loaded-box volumes last month were nearly completely balanced between imports and exports.”
In the cruise news, the Carnival Sunshine is a larger ship than the Fantasy, carrying about 1,000 more passengers and crew. It will offer cruises of between two and 10 days and will sail to ports in the Bahamas, St. Thomas, Antigua, Martinique, St. Kitts and San Juan.
Christine Duffey, president of Carnival Cruise Lines, said in a statement that Carnival Sunshine will offer “an extraordinary array of guest features and facilities,” including upgraded dining and entertainment that was part of Carnival’s Fun Ship 2.0 modernization program initiated in 2011.
Even with the additional sailings, Newsome said the port will maintain its level of fewer than 100 cruise ship departures per year.
To date, cruise ship passenger counts are down 5 percent from the previous year — to 121,270 people — due to a pair of weather-related cancellations.
The SPA has recorded $123 million in revenue this fiscal year, up nearly 21 percent from the same period a year ago. Earnings have tripled to nearly $20 million during the same time period.
Newsome said the port is entering one of its strongest stretches historically — the period of March through May — and he expects continued growth in cargo as the fiscal year winds down June 30.
The SPA’s noncontainerized business also saw increases in February. The Port of Georgetown handled 15,520 tons last month and is 5 percent ahead of its plan for the fiscal year. In Charleston, the SPA is on course to meet its break-bulk tonnage goal with 58,685 tons handled in February.
In other action during Monday’s meeting:
The board approved a contract for routine maintenance dredging at the North Charleston Terminal, which typically occurs every 12 to 15 months to preserve a 50-foot depth for large containerships.
The board approved a design modification to the two super-post-Panamax cranes on order for the Wando Welch Terminal.
Click to read article
Reach David Wren at 937-5550 or on Twitter at @David_Wren_
Less than a month before the updated Tourism Management Plan gets its first official airing, the S.C. State Ports Authority is changing the tourism equation in Charleston.
The SPA is allowing Carnival Cruise Lines to increase its presence in Charleston. The cruise ship Sunshine will start five cruises here in 2016.
Those are in addition to cruises of the Fantasy, which is home ported in Charleston.
While SPA President/CEO Jim Newsome said the authority will not exceed its self-imposed maximum of 104 cruises per year, the Sunshine brings almost 1,000 more passengers and crew members than the Fantasy, and additional people could be an issue.
Crowding and traffic on the peninsula are two primary considerations of the Tourism Management Plan update. Too bad port officials didn’t wait for the report before considering the Sunshine deal.
The tourism report will be heard at a special Charleston Planning Commission meeting on April 6, and then likely be sent to City Council for consideration on May 12.
Some recommendations that might be included involve a remote parking facility, shore power and a passenger head tax by the city. All could have an impact on Carnival’s contracts with the SPA.
Already the SPA has said no cruise ships with more than 3,500 passengers will come to Charleston. The Fantasy’s capacity is 2,056. The Sunshine’s is about 3,002.
What might come next? The passenger terminal that the SPA wants to build would accommodate even larger ships.
The process of updating the city’s Tourism Management Plan was encouraging in the way people of diverse interests cooperated to produce a mutually acceptable set of recommendations that would benefit the city.
The SPA could have displayed that same sense of cooperation by considering the updated plan before inking deals.
Ah, the Tourism Management Plan. Well, that got slightly derailed when Historic Charleston Foundation decided it could, in spite of the 2014 moratorium, add candlelight tours in February.(1) Now the plan is beginning to leave the tracks…before it’s released.
Carnival has announced that a second cruise ship will make five visits to Charleston next year. That’s in addition to calls by the Fantasy, Carnival’s ship that’s already home-ported here. According to the Post and Courier, “the Carnival Sunshine is a larger ship than the Fantasy, carrying about 1,000 more passengers and crew.”(2) According to Carnival’s website, The Sunshine “has been doused with an extra dose of fun” to accompany her 3000 passengers and 1040 crew.(3) One wonders if this extra dose of fun was brought to the attention of the Tourism Management Committee?
There can’t be a trend here, because according to State Ports Authority’s CEO Jim Newsome, the port will maintain its level of fewer than 104 cruise ship departures per year. Remember that’s one of the voluntary limits that the SC Ports Authority (SPA) agreed to. Mayor Joseph Riley said recently that there was a signed agreement with the SPA limiting cruise ship tourism. Except that we don’t know of one. Perhaps, Mr. Mayor, you could forward that signed agreement to us, and we’ll publish it with our next blog? But “no worries,” as the kids would say. Because there was that much-touted City Council resolution passed in response to cruise ship concerns. Except that that resolution doesn’t limit anything. It only requires the SPA to notify the City a year in advance if those voluntary limits of 104 cruise ship visits and a maximum of 3500 passengers per ship would be exceeded. What a happy coincidence, it turns out, that cruise ship schedules are created a year in advance. Notification should be no problem; the problem will arise when that notification occurs.
The Post and Courier editorial board is on top of this problem. Yesterday’s editorial, “More Cruises, More Questions,” asks the penultimate question. “What might come next? The passenger terminal that the SPA wants to build would accommodate even larger ships.”(4) Yes, it would. Union Pier is over 1800 feet long—enough to accommodate both the Fantasy and the Sunshine at the same time—although we’ve been promised that two cruise ships would never be in port at the same time. However, Union Pier also can accommodate the largest ship now afloat. No worries…
Except that the Panama Canal is being widened and, in anticipation, giant Post-Panamax cargo ships are already entering our port. Add in that the Chinese middle class, the ideal target for cruise travel, is growing rapidly. So bigger, wider cruise ships are sure to follow. And that’s still not the worst problem. That problem is President Obama’s unilateral gift to the ruthless, despotic Castro brothers—opening American tourism to siphon American dollars to prop up their dictatorship. If Carnival Cruise Lines wanted a big gift, they got it. Ironically, one of the Sunshine’s bars is “the already classic Havana Bar.” So this is the ultimate question—what city do you think will be hosting some of those ships headed for Cuba? Carnival’s ready, Charleston isn’t. We’ll soon be “doused with an extra dose of fun.”
And what about those voluntary, unenforceable cruise ship limits?
There’s only one solution. It’s not just shore power; shore power isn’t going to slow the rising tide of cruise ship tourism. It’s not a head tax, although money to offset the cost for police, fire and rescue equipment required for every ship visit could really help. The only permanent solution is to move the proposed cruise terminal away from the Historic Districts and downtown, farther north to the Columbus Street Terminal closer to major highways, so that passengers who are destined for the Bahamas or Cuba don’t overrun and kill what remains of Charleston’s charm and quality of life. If they want to see and appreciate Charleston’s history and culture, they’re welcome. But for those cruisers who just want an ice cream and a t-shirt, they certainly don’t need to drive through town and park on valuable waterfront land to get them. Then Union Pier could be sold at a much greater profit to the SPA and prudently developed to provide a breathtaking enhancement to downtown Charleston.
We’re certain the recommendation to move the cruise terminal away from downtown will be a key component of that Tourism Management Plan.
—Jay Williams, Jr
# # #
Written by jwilliams
The Charleston Cruise Control Blog, written by Jay Williams, Jr., published periodically since May, 2011, consists of opinions and discussions about cruise ship tourism. Although Jay is involved with various local organizations, the opinions he expresses are solely his; they do not represent the views of any organization or other individual. Mr. Williams is an independent blogger/writer. We present these blogs for C4 website visitors as an information source and as an additional way to chronologically follow the debates, commentaries and discussions about cruise tourism in Charleston.
Footnotes/links:
1) Historic Charleston website – candlelight tours
https://www.historiccharleston.org/Museums.aspx
2) More container volume, new cruise ship for Port of Charleston – Post and Courier
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150316/PC05/150319463
3) Carnival Sunshine – Carnival website
http://www.carnival.com/cruise-ships/carnival-sunshine.aspx
4) “More cruises, more questions” – Post and Courier editorial
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150319/PC1002/150319286/1506/more-cruises-more-questions
Tests in Manhattan, Venice, Germany show urgent need for lines to upgrade pollution controls
NEW YORK – Air samples taken near idling cruise ships in New York and three European ports contained dangerously high levels of soot, according to test results released by Friends of the Earth US and the Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union of Germany. The groups said the tests underscore the urgent need to install more modern air pollution reduction technology with filters that can all but eliminate deadly soot emissions.
At each port — New York, Venice, Italy and Hamburg and Rostok, Germany — samples taken by NABU with an ultrafine particle counter contained hundreds of thousands of microscopic ultrafine particles of soot per cubic centimeter of air. In New York, the sample contained 201,000 ultrafine particles of soot per cubic centimeter while the cruise ship Norwegian Gem was idling on Nov. 15, 2013. (See video of the test.)
Direct comparison with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency soot standards is not possible, because EPA includes somewhat larger particles, counts their mass rather than their number and measures their concentration over time rather than at peak levels. But the latest research indicates that the health hazards of ultrafine particle pollution, which are inhaled deep into the lungs, are the same as for other particles — heart problems, respiratory illness and premature death.
By comparison with the measurements of hundreds of thousands of particles per cubic centimeter at the cruise ship docks, NABU measured only 5,000 particles per cm3 in the center of Berlin.
“These extremely high measurements at the cruise ship docks are from the use of heavy fuel oil or bunker fuel and lack of pollution control technology,” said Dr. Axel Friedrich, formerly an air quality expert with the German federal environmental agency, who led the testing. “Without particle filters, cruise ship engines must operate continuously at the dock to keep the lights on, releasing huge quantities of toxic gases that harm public health.”
air pollution stats
NABU and Friends of the Earth are campaigning to get cruise lines worldwide to install state-of-the-art air pollution control technology which can reduce the amount of soot emitted by up to 99 percent. The campaign is focused on Carnival Corp. of Miami, the largest cruise company in the world, which operates 10 cruise lines, under various brand names, in the U.S. and Europe. Although some of Carnival’s lines, such as AIDA Cruises of Germany, have installed such equipment, Carnival has not done so for all of its lines and ships.
“It’s unacceptable that some Carnival Corporation ships will be installing state-of-the-art air pollution controls, but not the entire fleet,” said Marcie Keever, oceans and vessels program director of Friends of the Earth U.S. “It’s time for Carnival to stop dragging its feet, not only on the health and safety of its passengers but of people in the ports where it calls. If Carnival cares about people and the planet, the company should install the most health-protective technology on all ships, across all of the lines it operates, to keep the air we breathe clean and healthy.”
Leif Miller, CEO of NABU, said the World Health Organization considers soot as carcinogenic as asbestos.
“These measurements now demonstrate for the first time how much worse air pollution in ports is made by the pollution from idling cruise ships,” said Miller. As the cruise industry continued to grow rapidly, this means that every year more and more passengers and residents of port cities are exposed to deadly soot. Since the technology needed to clean up emissions is here today, this is unacceptable.”
###
Contact:
Marcie Keever, (510) 900-3144, mkeever@foe.org
Adam Russell, (202) 222-0722, arussell@foe.org
– See more at: http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2013-12-air-samples-at-cruise-ship-docks-worldwide-find-dangerous-soot-lvls#sthash.7tbMGXRs.dpuf
CHS | After losing its permit, the SPA will surely compromise. Ah, no.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard M. Gergel ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to comply with the “formal assessment and consultative requirements” of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) before awarding the SC Ports Authority (SPA) a permit to transform “a previously permitted transit shed…into a modern state-of-the-art $35-million cruise ship passenger terminal” at Union Pier in Charleston.
The Army Corps, for unknown and probably unknowable reasons, had determined that complying with the NEPA and NHPA assessments was unnecessary because “the proposed activity will result in minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects.” The project, the Corps said, would qualify as “maintenance,” and stated that the cruise terminal project had “no potential to cause effects on historic properties.”
Judge Gergel ruled otherwise. The Army Corps of Engineers, he said, ignored its responsibilities to do a proper assessment under the controlling NEPA and NHPA acts by saying that it was limiting its review to only five new pilings to support elevators and escalators that would come in contact with navigable waters. That argument, the Court said, is “plainly inconsistent with the Army Corps’ own regulation…which provides for jurisdiction involving ‘any structure in or over any navigable water in the United States.'” In his conclusion, the judge went farther, saying that rather than consider “all the activities in its jurisdiction under the Rivers and Harbors Act ‘in its scope of analysis,’ the Army Corps of Engineers, unreasonably and unlawfully, restricted its ‘scope of analysis’ to an insignificant fraction of the project that lay within the agency’s jurisdiction.”
“By omitting more than 99% of the project within its jurisdiction… “The Court finds that the Army Corps’ limitation of the ‘scope of analysis’ to five concrete pile clusters was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and contrary to law.”
Almost equally disturbing were the SPA’s own statements and data that it presented to the Court. Quoting from the ruling, “The Ports Authority has acknowledged that a cruise ship terminal can ‘present special challenges’ in ‘managing automobile and pedestrian traffic,’ ‘protecting the environment,’ ‘and preserving Charleston’s unique character’ and ‘there are still lingering questions about how well the cruise ship business will fit into the context of this diverse, world class city.'” “Record evidence provided by the Ports Authority supports the [opponent’s] claim…that the number of cruise ships and passengers has increased in recent years, and the proposed new and larger passenger terminal would likely significantly increase the number and size of cruise ships visiting Charleston and the volume of cruise passengers in the historic Charleston waterfront.” By 2012, the number of ships visiting Charleston had increased by 86% over “the 2005-2009 five-year average.”
And the SPA also gave us a glimpse into a far worse future. With a new terminal, the 1990’s-era, 855’, 2,056-passenger Carnival “Fantasy” will be replaced with ships carrying 3,450 passengers. And based on the SPA’s data, the Court concluded, “Even if the Ports Authority maintained its voluntary cap of 104 cruise ship visits a year(2), this would represent a 131% increase over the 2005-2009 five year average and a 24% increase from 2012.” And to service such a volume of passengers, the Court noted, the SPA estimates that on an average embarkation and disembarkation day, “up to twenty tractor trailers, sixteen small trucks, thirty-two busses, ninety taxis, and 1600 passenger vehicles would need access to the very confined” terminal area that “lies immediately adjacent to the Charleston Historic District and the Ansonborough neighborhood.”
So how do you think the SPA reacted to the ruling? Did it agree to comply, did it suggest a compromise, or did it offer to study another, less invasive location for a terminal? No. It appealed. The appeal came in spite of the SPA’s own website that appears to invalidate any argument that their project could be considered “maintenance”: “…Charleston is an ideal cruise port. With an efficiently run operation and plans for a new state-of-the-art cruise terminal, our port is ready to welcome cruise operators and travelers alike.”(3) Yes, and with the widening of the Panama Canal and a newly prosperous Chinese middle class, are we to believe that those ships of the future will carry only 3,450 travelers?
But if you’re looking for relief from Charleston’s mayor or its complacent, compliant City Council, forget it. Mayor Joseph Riley recently reiterated his total lack of interest in regulating cruise ship tourism.(4) So it’s up to the courts.
Oral arguments in another case will be presented this Tuesday, this one at the SC Supreme Court.(5) Carnival Cruise Lines will argue to dismiss charges that it’s violating zoning ordinances, permitting requirements and creating a nuisance.(6) True to form, both the SPA and the City of Charleston intervened in this case on behalf of…the defendant, not on behalf of the residents, organizations and associations trying to protect Charleston from the accelerating threat of unregulated cruise ship tourism.
Surely the SC Supreme Court read Judge Richard Gergel’s decision and recognizes the defendant’s fallacious assertion that their massive floating resorts can tie up at will, disgorge thousands of people simultaneously onto the world’s most cherished historic places, and then ignore every rule and regulation these historic places have developed to protect their history, culture and quality of life. Or must degradation accompany this exploitation?
Jay, 15 Nov 13
—-
1) U.S. District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, Court Decision. Preservation Society and Coastal Conservation League vs. US Army Corps of Engineers and SC Ports Authority
<Federal Cruise Permit SJ Order 9-18-13.pdf>
2) The SPA has steadfastly refused to commit those “voluntary limits” in to legally binding limits.
“This Charleston Harbor Battle is over Cruise Ships” – NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/us/battle-in-genteel-charleston-over-cruise-ships.html?_r=0
3) South Carolina Ports website – Cruise Charleston page
http://www.port-of-charleston.com/cruises/cruises.asp
4) Reports of Mayor Joseph Riley’s comments at the membership meeting of the Charlestowne Neighborhood Assn., 29 Oct 13.
5) South Carolina Supreme Court, Register of Cases for November, 2013. Look for first case on 19 November.
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/supremeRosters/dspSupRosterMenu.cfm
6) “Carnival Cruise Lines asks for Dismissal of Suit” – Post and Courier
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20110810/PC05/308109921
Written by jwilliams
The Charleston Cruise Control Blog, written by Jay Williams, Jr., published periodically since May, 2011, consists of opinions and discussions about cruise ship tourism. Although Jay is involved with various local organizations, the opinions he expresses are solely his; they do not represent the views of any organization or other individual. Mr. Williams is an independent blogger/writer. We present these blogs for C4 website visitors as an information source and as an additional way to chronologically follow the debates, commentaries and discussions about cruise tourism in Charleston.
as taken from The Post and Courier by Bruce Smith
Now that a judge has tossed out a federal permit for South Carolina’s proposed $35 million cruise terminal, opponents of the project say a state permit should be invalidated as well.
In September, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel invalidated a federal permit for the project that would transform an old waterfront warehouse into a passenger terminal. He ruled the Army Corps of Engineers, in allowing additional pilings to be placed under the warehouse for the terminal, did not adequately consider the project’s effects on Charleston’s historic district.
In a Nov. 1 filing with Ralph King Anderson, the chief judge of the Administrative Law Court, opponents say that with the federal permit invalidated, the state permit must be vacated as well.
Jessie White of the S.C. Environmental Law Project wrote the state permit required a water quality review. That review was encompassed by issuing the federal permit but, now that permit has been tossed out, the state must conduct its own review.
Without such a review, the motion said, “the permit and certification are invalid and must be vacated.”
Anderson has scheduled a Jan. 27 hearing in the case.
But if the state permit and certification are invalid “this honorable court should not expend its valuable resources or the resources of the parties evaluating what is, in essence and in law, a dead letter,” the motion said.
The State Ports Authority has until month’s end to respond to the motion.
The agency will be in court next week when the state Supreme Court hears arguments in a separate lawsuit alleging that cruises in Charleston are a public nuisance. The Ports Authority is also appealing Gergel’s ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Terminal opponents say they are not against cruises, but want limits so the number of passengers doesn’t overwhelm the city. Supporters say the city will only be a niche market and the industry is being appropriately regulated.
The debate has been ongoing for several years. Carnival Cruise Lines permanently based its 2,056-passenger liner Fantasy in Charleston more than three years ago. Before that, cruise liners made port calls, but no ships were based in Charleston.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 4, 2013 at 3:29 PM ET
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A citizens group from Charleston has formed a coalition with similar groups in Venice, Italy, and Key West, Fla., to work for regulations protecting smaller historic port cities from the congestion and pollution that can accompany cruise calls.
“The only way we can do anything is if we work together and if we shout together,” Carrie Agnew, executive director of Charleston Communities for Cruise Control, said Monday. “By working together and by joining forces and sending out the same messages everywhere we can have that much more credibility, we can have that much more reach.”
The Charleston group will work with a group called No Big Boats in Venice and the Key West Committee for Responsible Tourism. The size and number of cruise ships has been a subject of controversy in both cities in recent years and “Charleston is sort of on a precipice,” Agnew said.
Agnew says her group does not want to ban the cruise industry. “What we are looking for are reasonable regulations for port cities,” she said.
The Charleston group has proposed a Cruise Ship Code of Conduct that includes a ban on ships with a capacity of more than 3,000 from regularly visiting the city, limiting cruise calls in the city to two a week and requiring ships to use onshore power or burn low sulfur fuel while idling at dockside.
Supporters of the Charleston’s cruise industry say the city will only be a niche market and that the cruise trade is being appropriately handled. They say it creates jobs and is an economic boost for the city.
Carnival Cruise Lines’ 2,056-passenger liner Fantasy has home-ported in Charleston for more than three years. Before that, cruises made port calls, but no ships were based in the city.
The expanded cruise industry and the South Carolina State Ports Authority’s plans for a $35 million cruise terminal has resulted in lawsuits by environmental, preservation and neighborhood groups in state and federal court and a permit challenge in state administrative law court.
On Nov. 19, the state Supreme Court hears arguments in a lawsuit alleging that cruises in the city are a public nuisance and violate city zoning ordinances.
Meanwhile, the South Carolina State Ports Authority is appealing a federal judge’s decision tossing out a permit to install pilings allowing the terminal to be built. U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel ruled earlier in September there was no adequate review of the effects on the city’s historic district. Another challenge to a state permit for those pilings will be heard in administrative law court early next year.