526 Extension Petition opposing Alternative 10 and 36

We, the collective homeowners of West Woodland Shores Road would like to voice our STRONG OPPOSITION to Alternative 10 and Alternative 36 of the SC DOT's proposal alternatives for the extension of I-526. While the construction of any extension at all may be viewed differently among our property owners, it is the unanimous position of owners among this petition that these two alternatives are EXTREMELY HARMFUL to our neighborhood and the quality of life or our residents. Below are just some of the reasons we collectively oppose these alternatives.

(*-West Woodland Shores Road Neighborhoods refers to residents, properties and neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road west of Riverland Drive)

1)    Property Values - Clearly these alternatives would have a substantially negative impact on the property values of Cloudbreak Court, Stono Shores, etc, and other properties along west Woodland Shores Rd. The other options, including the originally proposed extension (alternative #1), that go through and next to the JI County Park include significantly more public land. If those options are available, why would the DOT choose to damage existing residential neighborhoods?

2)    "Proposed Extension" versus "new" options - For many years, people have seen maps of Charleston with "proposed extension" of 526 cutting through James Island in and around the county park. People have had time to make decisions, specifically real estate investment decisions, based on that "vision". Property owners along Woodland Shores have purchased knowing the possibility of the extension going through James Island, but until recently it was never shown (at least for any of the people we talked to) to even be considered going through our residential neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road. Alternatives 10 and 36 were among only a couple of the 30 options previously shown in the SCDOT pamphlet and somehow are now being considered on the final list. The introduction of these "new" options that impact multiple residential neighborhoods comes across as wreckless planning and appears to show complete disregard for the properties they are affecting.

3)    Noise and Quality of Life - Property owners along Woodland Shores have made real estate investment based on the quiet environment and aesthetic nature of our area. This is not an area that is near a major highway that would be an obvious possibility for major infrastructure to negatively impact our quality of life. Alternatives 10 and 36 appear to purposefully blaze a destructive path through what is currently a quiet and peaceful environment. It affects an enormous amount of homeowners and residents, many of which made an investment in this area specifically because of this quiet and peaceful environment.

4)    Preserving our environment - As mentioned above, we value the natural beauty and raw nature that surrounds our communities.  Having a main thoroughfare or connecting through roads would destroy the natural environment around us.

5)    Additional Traffic and Congestion - Property owners along Woodland Shores already have to deal with the "cut-through" traffic along Riverland Drive between Maybank and Central Park. The addition of a major highway going through or right behind our neighborhoods is only going to add to the congestion and chaos of Riverland Drive. With such a significant thoroughfare going right through our neighborhoods, unsightly development will surely follow and further negatively impact our quality of life.  Most importantly, additional through traffic (like what is proposed in option 10) would propose increased and significant danger to our young children who commonly play on what are now quiet and safe roads.

6)    The Other Alternatives Make Much More Sense! - As stated in comment #1 and #2 above, the county has already publicized "proposed extension" paths in different locations than alternatives 10 and 36 and already has public space that can handle the infrastructure. So why would they instead build a highway that goes right through existing residential neighborhoods and directly impact neighborhoods and hundreds of people?  It seems only negligence would allow for such an unnecessary and destructive path to be considered when much less destructive paths exist and are clearly more reasonable options.

Recommendation:

We STONGLY ENCOURAGE the DOT remove alternatives 10 and 36 from consideration. We believe alternative #1, because it was the original proposed extension that residents made their life decisions with, and because it uses already significant publicly-owned properties and negatively impacts significantly fewer residents, should be the preferred alternative to be considered by the SC DOT.

WE THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CONCERNS AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AS A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISION.