The reading for Wednesday is a bit long, but it’s quick because it’s a series of newspaper articles. Twelve years covering the history of the Longborough neighborhood. Read that history. Look at the assignment for paper 2. Decide what side of the issue you’re on. Imagine the best argument AGAINST your opinion, and refute it in a full ¶. Cut and paste that ¶ into a reply to this post.
Academic Writing
Iconic One Theme | Powered by Wordpress
Longborough Park lies between the Ashley River and the Longborough housing development. Residences of the community argue the City should not take the park via eminent domain, but not for the selfish desire to retain nature. A huge concern lies in parking, and the community fears that opening the park up to the public would create large amounts of traffic within the small neighborhood. The streets offer enough parking for only the residents, but certainly not nearly enough for visitors concentrated at the far end of the neighborhood near the park. The City should not take the Park because, while the park may be considered public, the Beach Co. owns the streets where the visitors would park – making the parking private. In the residence’s eyes, the City has no purpose in taking Longborough Park due to the effect parking may have on the small community.
Waterfront residents of Longborough Neighborhood spent a considerable amount of money purchasing their unique waterfront view up to $700,000 in some cases. They would argue that the city takes away from their invested funds by seizing Longborough Park and making it open to the public. They no longer have the luxury of the private waterfront access with which they bought the property. Anyone and everyone can now barge in on this once private neighborhood. These homeowners, however, are not justified in this claim. Before Longborough arose into a majestic middle-class neighborhood, it was the Shoreview Apartment Complex: a congregation of low-income housing units with many of its tenants relying on government funds to pay the rent. In order to make room for Longborough’s new houses, the lower-income residents were evicted and forced to migrate away from their once cherished homes. Simply put, this act was an injustice towards the city’s lower class. Just as everyone agrees on the injustice of President Andrew Jackson removing the Native Americans from their rightful homes and just as everyone agrees on the universal injustice of Europeans conquering foreign lands and displacing native peoples from their homes, this issue is not different. Wealthy residents of the city of Charleston displaced lower income residents. As it is generally agreed that when an injustice occurs, the offending party has a moral obligation to make amends, the wealthy residents of the city have a moral obligation to the lower-class residents whom they displaced. At the very least, they can share access to the water. Those who have homes in Longborough and gripe that the city is not justified in taking this land, remember that you are the beneficiary of an injustice. You may not have executed the act, but you were certainly a beneficiary of it. It is your moral obligation to the lower income residents of the city. Make amends. Let them share your park.
For those of you who believe that it is unfair for the Longborough residents to have to give up portions of their land to be used for eminent domain, it should be made aware that those residents will in turn have unlimited access along with the public- the only difference is is that the land is not legally theirs anymore. As for the land itself, the property may be maintained even better under the city’s care than it was when under the residents’ ownership. Although the land is free from the residents’ proprietorship, it is land that is used for the greater good, ultimately providing recreation and leisure for a larger population, including the residents. Land that may have gone unused when owned by the residents can be repurposed for a small cost while still capturing nature’s beauty. It is unfortunate that the residents had to lose private land in the process, but as Mayor Riley pointed out, they will have “rights [to the land] that exceed the public’s rights” (Knich). In short, what the residents lose in acreage is gained back in benefits and advantages of the park.
Residents of the Longborough neighborhood are considered to be prominent professionals that possess the privilege of having the beautiful view of the Ashley River to themselves. If the city takes Longborough Park for public use through eminent domain, then the general public will have the ability to encroach on their lavish, expensive property. After spending at most $700,000 for a place to live, residents don’t want to lose their privacy by allowing others into their backyard. However, the residents fail to realize their hypocritical attitude toward the public use of the park. Before Longborough became what it is today, it use to be the location of low-income apartments called Shoreview. The city took the apartments though eminent domain and allowed The Beach Co. to redevelop the land to better the community. Even though The Beach Co. beautifully redeveloped the property, the present-day residents have no problem with living in their nice houses that made the low-income residents of Shoreview leave after living there for a certain amount years and not knowing where to go. Now that the city wants to take a part of the neighborhood, that contains no houses, to allow others to enjoy the Ashley River, the residents want to claim that the city doesn’t have the right to take land because people live there.
Some people may believe that Longborough Park should have remained private for the residents of Longborough since the residents bought their houses with the private park in mind. Other reasons include that opening the park up to the public will create traffic on Mary Ellen Dr, and that the increased flow of people will create disturbances in Longborough. What these individuals should realize is that Longborough is not a private, gated community. Therefore, this private park of theirs should not have been private in the first place. Even with the city making the park open to the public, the residents of Longborough will still have access; the only difference is that the public will have access as well. Having looked at the park using Google Maps it is obvious that the park is nothing special, it is just a small sliver of land that runs out into the marsh that has a dock at the end. With this in mind the public most likely will not want to come to this park, as a result there will not be an increase in traffic in Longborough, nor will there be an increase in disturbances if there is not an increase in people. Now that Longborough Park is owned by the city, the city can make the park look nicer and more appealing for everyone, the residents of Longborough and the public.
In the case of the neighborhood of Longbourough, an issue eminent domain is an obvious issue. Many have argued over the past twelve years that an apartment complex similar to Shoreview should be constructed to accommodate the tenants who lost their homes due to its demolition. That since these people lived in these apartments previously, they deserve to reside somewhere else. That the government or Beach Co. should find them another place to live. That since they previously lived downtown, its wrong for them to be forced across the bridge or into North Charleston due to gentrification. Many of the evicted Shoreview residents and other low to no income individuals might argue that the Longbourough neighborhood is not designed for them, and in parts it wasn’t, but it very well could be. Louise Mitchell is a prime example of who Longbourough developed for. Louise Mitchell was evicted from Shoreview along with the rest of her neighbors, and worked several jobs to be able to afford one of these houses. She is “proud of (herself), but a little sad that (she is) the only one who followed through.” Morally, yes these tenants should be looked after to a certain extent. Many projects and especially Longbourough have been developed due to the issue of the lack of housing for low income, working class people who couldn’t otherwise afford to buy a home in downtown Charleston. The solution was Longbourough, providing fifty houses to working class, low income, first time house buyers. The stipulations for buying a house in this neighborhood were strict, aiming at this specific group of people and successfully accomplished its purpose.
Many opposed to claiming Longborough Park through eminent domain argue that people who have paid upwards of half a million dollars to live in a nice neighborhood near the water, made their purchase under the assumption that they were gaining exclusive waterfront property, and if Longborough Park becomes a public park they will have to tolerate lower class people coming to the park and loitering near their homes. While it’s true that wealth is a necessity to live along the Charleston waterfront, that wealth does not grant exclusive access to it. The residents of Longborough bought plots of land, they did not buy Longborough Park. Having Longborough as a private park only exacerbates the existing problem of de facto segregation on the peninsula and smothers diversity. People who don’t rake in a six-figure salary are still entitled to enjoy the natural beauty of the low country. Public parks and green spaces are a valuable asset to any urban community and they should be available to the entire public, not just he wealthiest among us. The cost of a home does not justify monopolizing natural resources or the inherently classist sentiments driving this argument.
Others may believe that Longborough Park should remain under private residential care. What those fail to realize is that the benefits of having a governmentally owned park is an advantage. This means that real estate value will go up because people would love to live so close to public parks. The government is now responsible for maintaining the beauty of the park, which means that it is less work for the residents. If Longborough Park were to be claimed a private park, it would only continue to segregate the city of downtown Charleston. When residents decided to move into this area, they were well aware that they were not purchasing private access to the water. Just because homes were lavish does not grant them the right to claim that the public area is theirs.
While the homeowners believe making the Longborough Park public will create an unfavorable environment, there are plenty of commodities the city will provide. These include “Longborough residents [not] hav[ing] to maintain the property or hold an insurance policy on it — the city will do all that —…And the city police will patrol it and maintenance workers will keep it clean, which [Mayor] Riley says will increase property values” (Hicks). Not only will making the park public help the homeowners, but it will also contribute to desegregation. Making this park private immediately restricts the lower class’s ability to enjoy the park because of their inability to afford the housing. Charleston strives to create a melting pot of cultures and social classes, and restricting access to Longborough Park destroys this goal.
Public access to waterways and your surrounding environment is paramount. Being able to enjoy the natural beauty of Charleston’s waterways is a spectacle like no other. Many assert that taking Longborough Park from the Longborough homeowners through eminent domain is completely justifiable. They assert that since the former Shoreview complex, which housed many lower income families, was “taken” to build this community/park, it is completely within the cities right to enact their power of eminent domain. However, these citizens don’t fully understand the legality of the situation. The Shoreview complex was purchased with the intent to build a new community, in turn, making the developer money. The old complex accepted Section 8 vouchers for lower income families; but there was never an agreement that this complex was designated for lower income housing. Beach Co. (the developer) is kindly allowing the city to sell 50 of their new units to lower income families who were displaced when Shoreview was demolished. The remaining 100 houses were sold at full market value to qualified buyers. These buyers purchased their new homes with the understanding that they would have access to a private park (pier) to view the Ashley River from. This is where the controversy begins over the park. Taking the park from these residents would be completely wrong. Nobody would want people parking outside of their house, on the narrow street that wasn’t designed to house an influx of new traffic or provide parking for those who want to use the park. The taking of the park would impose on the residents who paid for this amenity when they decided to move in. Public access to this amenity could have been a deciding factor when purchasing a home in the Longborough neighborhood. Taking this park would be like pulling the rug out from under someone. There are other areas that the city can take to open up access to the Ashley River waterway which don’t put city residents out.
Although many of the homeowners in the Longborough neighborhood are opposed to the notion of public water access from within their community the city of Charleston was right in their decision to take the park through their power of eminent domain for several reasons. First, current residents in the Longborough neighborhood whose houses are on the water have their own private water access that is exclusive to them and not open to anyone in the public, this private water access is most likely adequately reflected in the prices of their homes. People living in the Longborough neighborhood whose houses do not have public water access all have free access to the dock in the park in question. Formerly the neighborhood of Longborough was an affordable housing community known as Shoreview. Its residents were evicted by Beach Co. and forced to find housing elsewhere. This was not found to be illegal and/or wrong although many (especially the tenants) were strongly opposed to the idea. The Beach Co. made many concessions to appease their opposition on the project, including the promise of new affordable housing communities elsewhere and extending the time the current residents had to move out. Now with the city of Charleston claiming the park they are turning the tables back allowing members of the public to have access to the water, this means everyone from the high income residents to low income members of the surrounding community.
The residents of the new Longborough houses have an incredible view on the Ashley River. This view once belonged to low-income families who called Shoreview their home. Clearly the current owners have the right to enjoy the natural beauty along the water, but that does not grant them exclusivity. It is understandable that residents would be willing to pay a large sum of money for a great piece of real estate. It is understandable that only a portion of the population who would like to live in the area occupied by Longborough has the income to do so. It is understandable that homeowners would be concerned that affordable housing in neighboring areas would decrease property values. It is not understandable that people who were once torn away from their homes are not given the opportunity to settle back into the place they once built their lives. The fact that residents are paying high six figure prices for these homes does not mean that others should not be able to afford housing in a convenient area. Paying for value in a house is ubiquitous, paying for value in property is common, but paying for gentrification needs to be eliminated.
One of the main arguments against the conversion of Longborough Park into a public park is that it is unfair to the residents who bought their houses under the impression that they would have exclusive access to this particular waterfront. The residents believe that the transition of the private area to a public park will bring unwanted guest into their area and make public parking increasingly more difficult. However, the residents have had this private access for an excessive number of years; according to various council members, the land was supposed to be “deeded to the city years ago.” Also, since the land will become under government control it will be more regulated than before – the grounds will be cleaned periodically and there will be police to monitor illegal parking and activities. The residents will still have the same access as they had before, but now they do not have to worry about maintenance. The Longborough Public Park will give people who have never had access to the water an unparalleled opportunity, and the residents will still have the same access as always.
Mayor Joe Riley’s decision to claim Longborough Park through eminent domain and establish it as public property is certainly justifiable. As Councilman Gary White stated, whenever eminent domain is considered, it turns heads and gives reason for pause. After all, it is essentially the taking of land from an owner to be used for another purpose, even if the owner is paid a rightful amount for what is taken. However, in this case, the land at stake was never intended to be in possession of the Longborough Owners Association, though the sellers of the property may have made it seem that way at the time. The company who developed and sold these properties, The Beach Co., initially agreed to deed the park to the city long ago, before the neighborhood was even constructed. Turning over the ownership of the park from the homeowners to the city only put it in the hands of its rightful owners. Furthermore, it may be argued that since the Longborough Owners Association is already willing to allow the property to be used by any and all of the public, there is no good or usefulness in using eminent domain to strip them of that ownership. Nevertheless, should the property have been left in the ownership of the association, they still would have had the power to rob the public of access to the park later on if it ever appeared to them that the neighborhood was becoming too congested or if public access inconvenienced them. That is exactly what Mayor Riley is trying to avoid. Longborough homeowners are simply losing possession of a park they never should have possessed in the first place. They, along with the public at large, are still being offered entrance to it just as they were before.
Longborough residents currently enjoy beautiful waterfront views and a private park as a perk to living in the neighborhood. Their concerns that opening the park up to the public will cause parking and privacy issues due to the influx of guests are warranted and valid. However, Mayor Joe Riley and the city of Charleston have the right to exercise their power of eminent domain to reclaim this park. Because the park is currently the property of a private entity, the city need only pay the neighborhood the market value for the land in order to open it up to the public. With publicizing Longborough Park, although the neighborhood will have to adjust to the increase in traffic and visitors, the government will then be who is responsible for the upkeep, rather than the private residents or the HOA. Not only will the residents no longer be responsible for maintaining the park, but lower-income residents of Charleston will also be allowed to enjoy the park without having to live in the more expensive neighborhood.
Residents of Longborough park wake up in the morning and go to bed at night with spectacular waterfront views and a private park to enhance their ability to appreciate these views. One can assume that they are hard working people who have made a substantial amount of money to afford these views-but can you buy nature? Residents are against the government taking the private park through eminent domain due to concerns such as increased traffic and less privacy. Many believe this will decrease parking spaces near the park as well as bring in a crowd which cannot afford to live with such views. However, federal law states that the government is allowed to take private land for public use. First, though public use can have a diverse definition, few can argue that a public park which allows everyone access to appreciate a specific piece of nature contrasts this idea. Second, if one lives in a neighborhood or in an area which borders a city, it should be their expectation that full privacy and no traffic does not exist. Rural areas are a better option if this is one of their main concerns. We are in this world together; we live in areas together; we work together; we enjoy the natural beauties of this world together.
Some would argue that the city should be able to take Longborough Park through eminent domain. They would argue that the city should own the park so that all residents have equal access, and that a city owned park would allow more people access to nature. The neighborhood, however, has said that they will still allow public access to the park from dawn to dusk, and they will maintain it. The city’s primary argument in wanting to take the park is so all citizens have equal access, but I do not see why these residents should have to allow the public near their houses after dark. The city also wants to be able to let the public have a say on how the park is maintained, although the neighborhood has said they will keep the park in good condition and it is their right as property owners to decide how their land looks.
Longborough has the upscale taste and price of much of downtown Charleston. To own one of these swanky homes, buyers paid upwards of half-a-million. However, it was not always like this. In 2001, Beach Co. decided to tear down the existing housing complex: Shoreview, and low-income housing complex. In doing so, they displaced 160 low-income families. As a form of justification, they agreed to build some “lower”-income housing that would be offered first to the past residents of Shoreview. These would not be the voucher accepting complexes that were once there, but this would have to suffice. They also agreed on giving some of the land for public use; this never seemed to happen. The residents of Longborough have, for years, enjoyed all of the water access for themselves. When talk of making some of the land public use began to surface, almost all of the high-class residents opposed this idea. They complained of parking availability and a lose of privacy. While their arguments are valid; they did pay a lot for their view, they are fighting a fight that had already been won. In 2001, Beach Co. made it clear that some of the land would be public use. They were the ones that did not keep their end of the deal. The city had no other option than to take the land through eminent domain. I can sympathize with the residents of Longborough. I know that I would probably fight for private use of the water too, but in 2001, this argument was settled. Beach Co. made an agreement that they did not keep. The City had no other choice.
It is possible to see how people may think that the city taking Longborough park as eminent domain could be a way to open up the neighborhood and the waterfront for those who do not have private property along the waterfront. Until now, the park has been private property specifically meant for the people living in that neighborhood and has been not open to the public, however if it is open to the public, this would increase the amount of people trying to get into this already packed and little neighborhood. Furthermore, if the park is made public, the city could have to come up with new ways of dealing with the flow of traffic to the area, which would in the long run, turn out to be more expensive than is worth. Furthermore, Longborough Park is not a unique park in Charleston as thanks to rivers and the ocean there are plenty of places where people can enjoy a waterfront view that are already public areas.
One might argue that the city of Charleston does not have the right to take the pier in the Longborough neighborhood because the neighborhood is private, so the land should be reserved for the residents that paid a lot of money to live in the upscale neighborhood. However, since waterfront property is a limited resource in Charleston, it is important to keep it open for public use. The residents of Charleston should have the benefit of public waterfront property that is not littered with tourists to provide them with solace. It might be questioned if the city can justly seize private property. The city’s decision is affirmed by the Supreme Court. In the case of Kelo vs. London, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts power to interpret the transfer of property “extends only to determining whether the City’s proposed condemnations are for a “public use” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution”, meaning that the City of Charleston has full legal disclosure to justly purchase the land and make it public property for the betterment of the community.