Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 280
S
Corner Kick
Offline
Corner Kick
S
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 280
Originally Posted By: mysonsdad
I get it,, I just can’t imagine the county/town/school district would benefit from an agreement that limits who can rent it. I understood it when it was SSC, they had a long history in that area. However the Charleston Soccer club isn’t based or headquartered in Summerville or Dorchester County. They are no different than any other club area. Why would tax money be used to benefit one organization over another?




In this case, I believe that CSC is asked to allow access for other sports and they are the exclusive provider of soccer on those fields, then the taxpayers are fairly well served. That is what the Town may get. Vastly increased access for athletics.

What wouldn’t the Town get? More than one soccer club at that those fields. Soccer isn’t being denied. If a taxpayer wants his kid to play soccer there, he signs up for CSC.

I think CSC should be able to retain the soccer exclusivity they currently enjoy

Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 253
M
Corner Kick
OP Offline
Corner Kick
M
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 253
I agree,,, increased access for all athletics should be the goal. Hopefully that is what happens. Hopefully our town/county/school district is not
In the business of picking winners and losers when dealing with athletics. I don’t think a tax payer should be forced to pick one private entity over another to have access to public land. Equality should be the goal.

Joined: May 2018
Posts: 659
S
Goal
Online Content
Goal
S
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 659
TOMPSC had to wait out a contract for fields use by the Mount Pleasant Booster Club in order to make it available for all, Dorchester will too if they want to control what happens on the property.

So they'll have to wait the remainder of the 40 year contract. Or they can renovate now and open up some space for other sports at the soccer complex. That is up to them.

CSC will have to renovate themselves if the county backs out.

Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 280
S
Corner Kick
Offline
Corner Kick
S
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 280
Originally Posted By: mysonsdad
I agree,,, increased access for all athletics should be the goal. Hopefully that is what happens. Hopefully our town/county/school district is not
In the business of picking winners and losers when dealing with athletics. I don’t think a tax payer should be forced to pick one private entity over another to have access to public land. Equality should be the goal.


I get what you are saying, but municipalities do it all the time. As a taxpayer, I have no say on what news channels are shown at airports. The municipality and news org enter into a contract. No different here. Why should any organization that has control of land enter into an agreement with a municipality that forces them to give up there one and only advantage?

CSC did not have enter into the TIF. The YMCA didn’t. Both sides entered in a way that was mutually beneficial. The club gets improved facilities. The Town (and tax payers) gets increased access to recreational facilities.

Clamoring for increased club options at that location misses the point. Taxpayers support Gahagan. Where the soccer fields there? Taxpayers support the baseball/softball complex at Westscott. Again soccer taxpayers derive no benefit. There are winners and losers every time. Kids have options. The Y, DUSC are examples that play nearby.

I have yet to see a valid argument about why CSC should enter into this agreement and no longer remain sole proprietor of soccer at a facility they currently are. I get it, you see taxes paid and want open access across the board. Not going to happen. In this case, both sides benefit. Both gain something and both lose something.

Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 253
M
Corner Kick
OP Offline
Corner Kick
M
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 253
I guess we will see how this all ends up. Probably much ado about nothing. But I would assume that 1) CSC has had a MOU since November and hasn’t signed it or even mentioned it to its families and 2) the councilman making a statement to the news like: “I think they are doing a disservice to the citizens of Summerville, to the citizens of Dorchester County. We are dealing with an entity located in Charleston County, in Mt. Pleasant, that is not looking out for our folks like I think it should be,”.
I think it safe to assume the talks have not gone well.

Joined: May 2018
Posts: 659
S
Goal
Online Content
Goal
S
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 659
Sounds like we're all back on the same page about what the 2 possible futures are.

A) CSC property improved with TIF per plans and some other sports utilize as well
B) CSC property not improved, it remains only soccer and only CSC

Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Kickoff
Offline
Kickoff
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
just catching up on this thread. I seem to recall that town of mount pleasant was sued for field access in 2016 due to an "exclusive agreement with another soccer operation." if taxpayer money is going into improving these fields in summervile then there should be no exclusive agreements. the town/county would stand to benefit more by renting equally. clubs should not benefit off taxpayers.

https://www.postandcourier.com/sports/ca...4102f64e33.html

Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 374
Corner Kick
Offline
Corner Kick
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 374
Oh my, now you've done it, and dragged that up. We lost that one - 14th amendment (and various angles) didn't apply.
I think the court in its final statement provides a clear indication of their assessment of the issue.

“…That may be a powerful argument, but it is an argument appropriately addressed to the voters of Mount Pleasant and their elected representatives. This case presents no federal constitutional issue, and this Court cannot-and would not-take over management of local youth soccer on the basis of plaintiff s policy disagreements with local elected authorities.”

Not that we don’t have a reasonable ask, but that it is something for the local authorities to manage. A political issue, not legal.

To the main topic, I'm delighted to see some possible improvements to any facility (regardless of who pays). Mind you, I'd much rather see that money invested in new facilities. Honestly the CSC (SSC) complex has operated for years and I've never minded playing there. Bet our members would give a right arm for something similar in our neck of the woods.

For sure, you lose days to rain and wet, but who doesn't. Try operating in the sea level plains of East Cooper (parts of Trident still under water today)
In the grand scheme of things, I'd factor a 20% hit to schedules each year as opposed to maybe 10% on higher/better drained ground. So the delta isn't that great (point proven yesterday Carolina Park was closed (with its drainage) as well as Trident (without)).

Interesting to see where this goes and I'll look forward to any game out there (as is or improved).


satus quod perago validus - start and finish strong
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 659
S
Goal
Online Content
Goal
S
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 659
Good to hear from you Coach! Sorry you got dragged back in!

Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 280
S
Corner Kick
Offline
Corner Kick
S
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 280
Originally Posted By: Charlie Eagle
just catching up on this thread. I seem to recall that town of mount pleasant was sued for field access in 2016 due to an "exclusive agreement with another soccer operation." if taxpayer money is going into improving these fields in summervile then there should be no exclusive agreements. the town/county would stand to benefit more by renting equally. clubs should not benefit off taxpayers.

https://www.postandcourier.com/sports/ca...4102f64e33.html


Thank you for contributing. This is an apples to oranges comparison. CSC has a 30 year lease on the property. It is in a flood zone. Dorchester County would benefit more tenting equally, certainly.

Or they could not invest at all and get no access.

Keep in mind, this is a one time cost. To my knowledge, the maintenance of the facility is still CSCs responsibility (which is not a small cost). The County had to decide if the increased access for other groups was worth the investment. CSC had to decide if the investment was worth giving up complete autonomy.

This idea of taxpayer money and exclusivity with a private organization is commonplace (airports and CNN or state universities and exclusive apparel contracts for example). You may not like it and you may not think it’s right, but it happens all the time.

Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.069s Queries: 34 (0.028s) Memory: 3.2077 MB (Peak: 3.5861 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 10:25:38 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS