He's ba-a-a-ack!
The man widely considered to be the spoiler in the 2000 election is making another third-party run for President.
Ralph Nader says he's not expecting to play that role again, as he doubts the electorate will pull levers for a "pro-war John McCain."
Meanwhile, at McCain headquarters, it might be a good idea to wear a hard hat. I can't swear to it, but champagne corks may already be flying there.
Nader is one of those third-party guys that some people will take seriously enough to actually vote for him. His votes will have to come from somewhere, and like in 2000 and 2004, that somewhere will be the Democrats.
Already, this may lend some confusion to what may be another tight November race.
In 2000. Florida was the key state. By the time all the recounts and whatever else was done, George W. Bush ended up with a 537-vote majorityover Al Gore. Nader? He didn't do too badly. He gathered more than 97,000 Florida votes, pretty good for a third-party guy.
But the whole race was so close, Florida would be the decider. So Ralph Nader gave us eight years of George Bush. No wonder Ralph's name is mud in many circles.
What's especially ironic was that Nader, back in the day, was considered one of the leading lights of the fledgling environmental movement. But the man who lost the 2000 election, Gore, has done a lot more to put the environment front and center over the past decade than Nader has, even in his fantasies.
Now, Nader -- who will be 74 in a few days -- believes he's still got his stuff.
"American politics is saturated in taboos and self-censorship to a level where the greatest issues in the campaign are off the table," he says.
Which may be true. What's even more true is that since 2000 Nader was largely irrelevant -- that is, assuming he was still relevant during the election.
By the very nature of their work, activists have very short effective careers. These are the one-shot folks in our society. The best activists rise up for a short period, over a single issue, do their thing, and quietly fade back into the masses. It's when they start tackling other issues that have little to do with what put them in the public eye in the first place that they become irrelevant. Or, more bluntly, when they start acting from ego rather than from a conviction.
Write this down: Few things are sadder to see than a washed-up activist in search of yet another cause. When they're at that point, you know they're feeding the ol' ego.
Back in the 1980s I'd missed the opportunity to catch Cesar Chavez -- remember him? -- giving a speech at my college. I had a scheduling conflict, so I gave the assignment to one of our other reporters. Turns out I didn't miss much. Chavez, who had done so much for farm workers 15 years earlier, couldn't summon the same magic. Or even look like he could do it. My reporter came away unimpressed. All Cesar Chavez had was his name. He had become irrelevant.
One even wonders about someone like Martin Luther King, a man who had done a lifetime of good work in just a few years. Had he lived, would he have been able to stay relevant very long? Would he just be a name, a resume, and little else in today's world?
Jesse Jackson, who had picked up King's mantle, had his ativist moments, but stayed in the business a little too long -- long enough to become irrelevant.
Ralph Nader shares that same fate. The Democrats don't like him much -- if I remember, the party suggested he sit out the 2004 election. His vote totals were much slimmer, 466,000 votes as compared to 2.8 million four years before. The voters, by then, had caught on.
Ralph Nader's ego prevents him from likewise catching on.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Like 1980s liberals, conservatives lost in time
Maybe it was the wide-open field, and maybe the revamped primary schedule. But, in mid-February voters still feel they have some say in who will be the next President.
That is, except for the conservatives. Many are already feeling screwed, which is something that usually afflicts most of the populace by this time in any election campaign.
At this point the Republican race is pretty well decided, with John McCain as the clear frontrunner. Yeah, the McCain who was last seen co-authoring Senatorial bills with lefties Ted Kennedy and Russell Feingold. That McCain.
As soon as Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney stepped aside in this race, conservative talk-show hosts and callers threw the mother of all hissy fits. There goes the neighborhood, many said. Mike Huckabee is a non-factor outside the South, Romney is out of the picture, and Ron Paul (who was, to me, one of the few candidates to actually make a lick of sense around here) is considered fringe material. But McCain?
Many conservatives are suggesting sitting this election out, which is practically unheard of from that camp. Ann Coulter is making noises that she may endorse Hillary Clinton (Hillary can have her). But cooler heads are saying to go with the standard-bearer McCain, warts and all. Simple logic: Better half a loaf than no loaf at all. Suffice it to say, a lot of wagons are circling right now.
A few days ago, Cal Thomas penned a column saying conservatives should take a hard look at themselves and start living in the past.
There’s no disputing Thomas’ credentials. He’s one of the leading wordsmiths of the Christian Right, and has been since, well, the Reagan years. At one time he struck me as one of the more strident voices around, but maybe he mellowed some as he got older. Or, more likely, I was younger and far to the left of where I now sit on the political spectrum. Or even both.
But Thomas now says this: “Today’s conservatives … can’t seem to break with the past and the nostalgia for the Reagan years. Too many modern conservatives seem embedded in a concrete slab of pessimism, preferring to go over a bridge and drown rather than ‘compromise’ their principles.”
Thomas cites former Bush II speechwriter David Frum in saying that the issues today are different from those that brought the Republicans to power during the 1980s and 1990s. And this is true; back then folks were not as concerned about health care, carbon dioxide, obesity, terrorism, or immigration as they are now. Back then the great enemy was the Soviet Union, and that was on its way out anyway.
“If conservatives really want to win, they will adopt ideas based on old principles,” Thomas argues. “Conservatives are in danger of losing the coming election and future ones because they have not reinvented themselves for a new era.”
Thomas doesn’t mention this, but it’s worth noting that one of the things that helped put Reagan in power was that the liberals were living in the past. The Democrats were so busy looking for someone who would look, sound, and act like the Jack Kennedys and Franklin Roosevelts that the party was fast becoming irrelevant. Guys like Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Tip O’Neil – and did someone mention Ted Kennedy? – represented the old liberal line that was several decades out of date and really wasn’t all that promising when in vogue.
Bill Clinton did a lot more than make cigars fashionable. By his example he put the Democratic Party back into step with the times. As I recall, many old-line liberals had a hard time swallowing his ideas of coalition-building and cooperation across party lines. But in future years he may become the yardstick by which liberals will be judged, much as Reagan is now. (A footnote here, just because I couldn’t resist: Hillary is no Bill.)
I’m neither Democrat nor Republican, though my politics are decidedly to the right of where most folks accuse the media’s to be. And, while I have a real problem with McCain’s idea of “preemptive war” as is now being practiced in Iraq, I do like him. I’ve met him a few times back in Arizona, and he strikes me as a straight shooter, a transplanted Southwesterner who follows his own drumbeat. This in itself is not enough for him to earn my vote, and I’m still holding out for a late surge by Ron Paul, I’ve sat through enough November elections to know that the choices are rather limited by then.
For the conservatives who still yearn for the days of Reagan and Barry Goldwater (another straight shooter), McCain’s drumbeat may resemble a peyote shuffle in 5/4 time. But to those who realize the times are different than they were two decades ago, they may warm up to McCain yet.
###
That is, except for the conservatives. Many are already feeling screwed, which is something that usually afflicts most of the populace by this time in any election campaign.
At this point the Republican race is pretty well decided, with John McCain as the clear frontrunner. Yeah, the McCain who was last seen co-authoring Senatorial bills with lefties Ted Kennedy and Russell Feingold. That McCain.
As soon as Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney stepped aside in this race, conservative talk-show hosts and callers threw the mother of all hissy fits. There goes the neighborhood, many said. Mike Huckabee is a non-factor outside the South, Romney is out of the picture, and Ron Paul (who was, to me, one of the few candidates to actually make a lick of sense around here) is considered fringe material. But McCain?
Many conservatives are suggesting sitting this election out, which is practically unheard of from that camp. Ann Coulter is making noises that she may endorse Hillary Clinton (Hillary can have her). But cooler heads are saying to go with the standard-bearer McCain, warts and all. Simple logic: Better half a loaf than no loaf at all. Suffice it to say, a lot of wagons are circling right now.
A few days ago, Cal Thomas penned a column saying conservatives should take a hard look at themselves and start living in the past.
There’s no disputing Thomas’ credentials. He’s one of the leading wordsmiths of the Christian Right, and has been since, well, the Reagan years. At one time he struck me as one of the more strident voices around, but maybe he mellowed some as he got older. Or, more likely, I was younger and far to the left of where I now sit on the political spectrum. Or even both.
But Thomas now says this: “Today’s conservatives … can’t seem to break with the past and the nostalgia for the Reagan years. Too many modern conservatives seem embedded in a concrete slab of pessimism, preferring to go over a bridge and drown rather than ‘compromise’ their principles.”
Thomas cites former Bush II speechwriter David Frum in saying that the issues today are different from those that brought the Republicans to power during the 1980s and 1990s. And this is true; back then folks were not as concerned about health care, carbon dioxide, obesity, terrorism, or immigration as they are now. Back then the great enemy was the Soviet Union, and that was on its way out anyway.
“If conservatives really want to win, they will adopt ideas based on old principles,” Thomas argues. “Conservatives are in danger of losing the coming election and future ones because they have not reinvented themselves for a new era.”
Thomas doesn’t mention this, but it’s worth noting that one of the things that helped put Reagan in power was that the liberals were living in the past. The Democrats were so busy looking for someone who would look, sound, and act like the Jack Kennedys and Franklin Roosevelts that the party was fast becoming irrelevant. Guys like Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Tip O’Neil – and did someone mention Ted Kennedy? – represented the old liberal line that was several decades out of date and really wasn’t all that promising when in vogue.
Bill Clinton did a lot more than make cigars fashionable. By his example he put the Democratic Party back into step with the times. As I recall, many old-line liberals had a hard time swallowing his ideas of coalition-building and cooperation across party lines. But in future years he may become the yardstick by which liberals will be judged, much as Reagan is now. (A footnote here, just because I couldn’t resist: Hillary is no Bill.)
I’m neither Democrat nor Republican, though my politics are decidedly to the right of where most folks accuse the media’s to be. And, while I have a real problem with McCain’s idea of “preemptive war” as is now being practiced in Iraq, I do like him. I’ve met him a few times back in Arizona, and he strikes me as a straight shooter, a transplanted Southwesterner who follows his own drumbeat. This in itself is not enough for him to earn my vote, and I’m still holding out for a late surge by Ron Paul, I’ve sat through enough November elections to know that the choices are rather limited by then.
For the conservatives who still yearn for the days of Reagan and Barry Goldwater (another straight shooter), McCain’s drumbeat may resemble a peyote shuffle in 5/4 time. But to those who realize the times are different than they were two decades ago, they may warm up to McCain yet.
###
Something new added to The Column
The Column, Reloaded will start running short pieces, random observations and a bit of "spot" news to go with the longer articles.
Using a service called Jott, I am able to phone these shorter pieces directly into The Column.
A few caveats, though. These pieces are going in unedited, and sometimes they will look like they were typed in by a drunken Martian. So, until I edit the shorter pieces, you can click on the "listen" link to hear my actual dictation. As soon as the editing is completed, that link will be removed.
Jott, by the way, is a very handy service. I highly recommend it if you're a blogger.
But this will mean more frequent posts, and more variety in what The Column, Reloaded has to offer. Man does not live by hard-hitting commentary alone.
Using a service called Jott, I am able to phone these shorter pieces directly into The Column.
A few caveats, though. These pieces are going in unedited, and sometimes they will look like they were typed in by a drunken Martian. So, until I edit the shorter pieces, you can click on the "listen" link to hear my actual dictation. As soon as the editing is completed, that link will be removed.
Jott, by the way, is a very handy service. I highly recommend it if you're a blogger.
But this will mean more frequent posts, and more variety in what The Column, Reloaded has to offer. Man does not live by hard-hitting commentary alone.
Strange sighting, North Charleston
Now I think I have definitely seen it all. A few minutes in a thrift store North Charleston, I ran across a Mexican woman sitting on a bench on the sales floor, minding her own business, breast feeding her child. Right there in front of God and everybody.
And to think you can get all kinds of static for doing the same thing in a changing room in a Mount Pleasant department store.
And to think you can get all kinds of static for doing the same thing in a changing room in a Mount Pleasant department store.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Random drug tests for candidates? Bring 'em on
"You can't judge a book by its cover, we agree;
How can you judge a man by looking at his pee?"
-- David Owens, Delapo'luxury
So you think legislators spend their time coming up with laws that make little or no sense?"
Up in Columbia, South Carolina lawmakers are finally debating what appears to be a good, forward-thinking idea. State Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, a Republican from Gaffney, wants all candidates for public office in the state to take a drug test.
This is really a reactive bill, after newly-elected state treasurer Thomas Ravenel was indicted on felony cocaine charges. Ol’ Tom lost his state post, eventually pleaded guilty, and now faces up to 20 years in the slams, making for a real short political career and becoming the butt of a lot of bad jokes.
The bill was brought up for debate last week, and Peeler – who had to submit to a drug test to get his commercial driver’s license -- was informed that the bill was probably against the state Constitution, so it appears he’ll go that route to get it passed. This means a) clearing a two-thirds margin in both the state House and Senate, and b) passing muster with voters come November. Which, well, is bucking the odds.
Thomas Crocker, a teacher specializing in constitutional law at the University of South Carolina School of Law, says that it’s the state Constitution, not the legislature, that sets the rules for office seekers. He also believes that suspicionless, that is, blanket drug tests violate search-and-seizure provisions of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, so this raises the ante quite a bit more.
“The citizens think it’s a great idea, but once you get to Columbia, people start picking it apart,” a miffed Peeler told the Associated Press.
Whatever happens here, this is something voters everywhere should watch. Recently, the U.S. Congress hit an approval rating of less than 25 percent, putting it below Bush’s rating. If there’s a Mendoza Line for political approval ratings, Congress is probably below it. So there’s the public trust issue.
Workers with many companies are required to take a drug test as a condition for employment, and other companies have a policy demanding that employees pee into a bottle after any on-the-job accident. Shipping companies for sure have that provision – once, back in my cab driving days, I waited for an hour for a seaman to make it off the ship so I could take him to the local clinic. The reason? He was taking a drug test, and it took that long – plus two bottles of water – to work up a sizeable stream. The shipping company paid me for my waiting time.
I’m not a great fan of drug tests. A supervisor with half a brain and the willingness to treat his workers as something more than faceless cogs on an assembly line can tell pretty quickly who’s “using,” anyway.
It stands to reason, though, that a legislator makes decisions affecting a lot more lives and a lot more assets than, say, an assembly line worker. Even more than a truck driver. Even more than an airline pilot. So if mandatory drug tests should be the thing, what likelier class of workers should be targeted than those in public office?
Being the sporting type, I’ve taken a few drug tests for jobs and passed every one of them (which I mention only for the sake of some of my readers who may have any questions). I didn’t even have to study hard for these tests.
Some years ago, the City Council of Bullhead City, Arizona, considered implementing a policy requiring random drug tests for all city employees. To this day I don’t remember whether the measure passed (did I mention I passed every single drug test I’ve ever taken?), but I do remember Councilman David Duvall, a former Marine with a Santa-sized beard, was totally in favor of it. He wanted to extend the policy to include the mayor and City Council members, as a symbolic measure. Duvall was so eager to have that part approved that he was ready to be tested right away, in front of the council, audience, and press. I’m sure if there was an empty coffee cup nearby, he would have used it.
Given that the Bullhead City Council had a history of making highly questionable decisions and was such a local joke back then – forget about being re-elected; just trying to make through a four-year term without being recalled was enough of a feat – this one was just too good for me to pass up. At the time I was writing for the Bullhead City Booster, which later became the Mohave Valley Daily News.
“This is a great idea,” I wrote of the Duvall amendment in my column. “How about (testing) before every council meeting?
Now, more than 15 years later, on the other side of the country, in a land of Spanish moss instead of saguaro cactus, I still think it’s a great idea. And for the same reasons.
How can you judge a man by looking at his pee?"
-- David Owens, Delapo'luxury
So you think legislators spend their time coming up with laws that make little or no sense?"
Up in Columbia, South Carolina lawmakers are finally debating what appears to be a good, forward-thinking idea. State Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, a Republican from Gaffney, wants all candidates for public office in the state to take a drug test.
This is really a reactive bill, after newly-elected state treasurer Thomas Ravenel was indicted on felony cocaine charges. Ol’ Tom lost his state post, eventually pleaded guilty, and now faces up to 20 years in the slams, making for a real short political career and becoming the butt of a lot of bad jokes.
The bill was brought up for debate last week, and Peeler – who had to submit to a drug test to get his commercial driver’s license -- was informed that the bill was probably against the state Constitution, so it appears he’ll go that route to get it passed. This means a) clearing a two-thirds margin in both the state House and Senate, and b) passing muster with voters come November. Which, well, is bucking the odds.
Thomas Crocker, a teacher specializing in constitutional law at the University of South Carolina School of Law, says that it’s the state Constitution, not the legislature, that sets the rules for office seekers. He also believes that suspicionless, that is, blanket drug tests violate search-and-seizure provisions of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, so this raises the ante quite a bit more.
“The citizens think it’s a great idea, but once you get to Columbia, people start picking it apart,” a miffed Peeler told the Associated Press.
Whatever happens here, this is something voters everywhere should watch. Recently, the U.S. Congress hit an approval rating of less than 25 percent, putting it below Bush’s rating. If there’s a Mendoza Line for political approval ratings, Congress is probably below it. So there’s the public trust issue.
Workers with many companies are required to take a drug test as a condition for employment, and other companies have a policy demanding that employees pee into a bottle after any on-the-job accident. Shipping companies for sure have that provision – once, back in my cab driving days, I waited for an hour for a seaman to make it off the ship so I could take him to the local clinic. The reason? He was taking a drug test, and it took that long – plus two bottles of water – to work up a sizeable stream. The shipping company paid me for my waiting time.
I’m not a great fan of drug tests. A supervisor with half a brain and the willingness to treat his workers as something more than faceless cogs on an assembly line can tell pretty quickly who’s “using,” anyway.
It stands to reason, though, that a legislator makes decisions affecting a lot more lives and a lot more assets than, say, an assembly line worker. Even more than a truck driver. Even more than an airline pilot. So if mandatory drug tests should be the thing, what likelier class of workers should be targeted than those in public office?
Being the sporting type, I’ve taken a few drug tests for jobs and passed every one of them (which I mention only for the sake of some of my readers who may have any questions). I didn’t even have to study hard for these tests.
Some years ago, the City Council of Bullhead City, Arizona, considered implementing a policy requiring random drug tests for all city employees. To this day I don’t remember whether the measure passed (did I mention I passed every single drug test I’ve ever taken?), but I do remember Councilman David Duvall, a former Marine with a Santa-sized beard, was totally in favor of it. He wanted to extend the policy to include the mayor and City Council members, as a symbolic measure. Duvall was so eager to have that part approved that he was ready to be tested right away, in front of the council, audience, and press. I’m sure if there was an empty coffee cup nearby, he would have used it.
Given that the Bullhead City Council had a history of making highly questionable decisions and was such a local joke back then – forget about being re-elected; just trying to make through a four-year term without being recalled was enough of a feat – this one was just too good for me to pass up. At the time I was writing for the Bullhead City Booster, which later became the Mohave Valley Daily News.
“This is a great idea,” I wrote of the Duvall amendment in my column. “How about (testing) before every council meeting?
Now, more than 15 years later, on the other side of the country, in a land of Spanish moss instead of saguaro cactus, I still think it’s a great idea. And for the same reasons.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
A little green at the old Navy yards
Who’d have thunk it? A part of the old Charleston Navy Base is getting notice for “green” development.
Natural Home Magazine picked a 340-acre slice of the old base, being developed as part of the Noisette Creek project, as one of the 10 best green-built neighborhoods in the country. The magazine cites things such as alternative energy sources, landscaping, and housing mix as positive points in its article.
When I read this, I had to read it again. Had to. I go back a few years with the old Navy yards.
The first time I’d driven onto the old base, in my old taxi, I was headed to the “south yards” to pick up one of the students at the Border Patrol Academy. I saw the rusted-out buildings, the holes in the road, and thought the place looked abandoned.
Abandoned, hell. At that time, about the best thing for the old Navy yard was perhaps a wrecking ball and a lot of Du Pont’s finest. The place looked, I thought, like a third-world country.
When I moved to Charleston in 1997, the base had already been shut down, and saw that North Charleston was heading into his worst time. Business had slowed down all around, what with those Navy folks being gone. A shopping mall near Montague Avenue was on its way out, being populated only with a Wards store. Decaying neighborhoods near the base went completely to hell.
As part of their orientation, Border Patrol trainees were warned not to go wandering around outside the gates; you never know what can happen. Yes, the neighborhood was that bad.
As the Charleston peninsula went through its redevelopment (and resulting gentrification) over the past decade, many of the displaced moved to North Chuck. Tourists made Charleston their destination; you never heard of anybody planning a romantic getaway to North Charleston. The area had been considered low-rent, a home to a zillion apartments and mobile homes. North Charleston has made some strides recently, but a few months ago was still ranked the seventh-most dangerous city in America.
The base itself has been in a state of flux. The Border Patrol moved in, the Border Patrol moved out. AmeriCorps moved in, AmeriCorps moved out. You can almost set this to music.
Now the south yard is home to the Homeland Security academy, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (or FLETC for short). A handful of shipping interests plied their trade at what is now known as the Veterans Terminal. Ships were repaired at the dry docks, now run by Detyens Shipyard. There’s a marina on the property, though boat owners regularly complain of their vessels getting covered in coal dust from the nearby Kinder-Morgan terminal. And after much initial resistance, plans are being made to build a container shipping terminal at the base’s south end.
And now, the Noisette Creek development is getting notice for greenness. The base has come a long way in 10 years. And this isn’t an easy achievement to pull off.
For all the military does to preserve our way of life, they are not known for their environmentally-friendly practices. There is a lot of dirty work that goes on at a military base, anything from storing fuel to handling chemicals and other substances that are, well, designed to kill folks on the other side of some imaginary line. That’s a fact of life. Sometimes this stuff is spilled, or forgotten, and the land underneath – and surrounding – the base takes a real beating.
Back in the late 1980s, when I was living in California, my area had two massive pieces of land that had been home to some really dirty tenants. One, in San Bernardino, was the old Norton Air Force Base, shut down in the first wave of base closures. The other, in Fontana, was the old Kaiser steel mill. Cleanup of the Kaiser site was estimated to be about $40 million, but the Norton site, as I recall, was far more contentious to rehabilitate. The steel mill site only had several mountains of slag, a PCB-rich area where they got rid of some old transformers, and some other relatively lightweight chemicals here and there. Norton, well, it was an air base; ‘nuff said.
Now, Norton (where one of my favorite celebrities, Gen. Chuck Yeager once commanded) is an international cargo airport. Kaiser? Well, after heavy talk of building an industrial park and a series of annexation wars, NASCAR came to town. The old steel mill is now the site of the California Speedway, a track that has brought much success to Jeff Gordon over the years.
But those are easier projecs. People don’t live at the cargo airport or race track.
Natural Home Magazine’s other favorites include a mixed-use project built on the old municipal airport site in Austin, Texas, 4,700 acres of reclaimed land at Denver’s old Stapleton Airport – the largest urban infill redevelopment project in the United States, and the new High Point project in Seattle, which replaces public housing. North Charleston is in some pretty fast company.
It’s nice to see North Charleston make this kind of Top Ten list for a change, and it’s especially nice to see a little green development at the old yards.
Natural Home Magazine picked a 340-acre slice of the old base, being developed as part of the Noisette Creek project, as one of the 10 best green-built neighborhoods in the country. The magazine cites things such as alternative energy sources, landscaping, and housing mix as positive points in its article.
When I read this, I had to read it again. Had to. I go back a few years with the old Navy yards.
The first time I’d driven onto the old base, in my old taxi, I was headed to the “south yards” to pick up one of the students at the Border Patrol Academy. I saw the rusted-out buildings, the holes in the road, and thought the place looked abandoned.
Abandoned, hell. At that time, about the best thing for the old Navy yard was perhaps a wrecking ball and a lot of Du Pont’s finest. The place looked, I thought, like a third-world country.
When I moved to Charleston in 1997, the base had already been shut down, and saw that North Charleston was heading into his worst time. Business had slowed down all around, what with those Navy folks being gone. A shopping mall near Montague Avenue was on its way out, being populated only with a Wards store. Decaying neighborhoods near the base went completely to hell.
As part of their orientation, Border Patrol trainees were warned not to go wandering around outside the gates; you never know what can happen. Yes, the neighborhood was that bad.
As the Charleston peninsula went through its redevelopment (and resulting gentrification) over the past decade, many of the displaced moved to North Chuck. Tourists made Charleston their destination; you never heard of anybody planning a romantic getaway to North Charleston. The area had been considered low-rent, a home to a zillion apartments and mobile homes. North Charleston has made some strides recently, but a few months ago was still ranked the seventh-most dangerous city in America.
The base itself has been in a state of flux. The Border Patrol moved in, the Border Patrol moved out. AmeriCorps moved in, AmeriCorps moved out. You can almost set this to music.
Now the south yard is home to the Homeland Security academy, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (or FLETC for short). A handful of shipping interests plied their trade at what is now known as the Veterans Terminal. Ships were repaired at the dry docks, now run by Detyens Shipyard. There’s a marina on the property, though boat owners regularly complain of their vessels getting covered in coal dust from the nearby Kinder-Morgan terminal. And after much initial resistance, plans are being made to build a container shipping terminal at the base’s south end.
And now, the Noisette Creek development is getting notice for greenness. The base has come a long way in 10 years. And this isn’t an easy achievement to pull off.
For all the military does to preserve our way of life, they are not known for their environmentally-friendly practices. There is a lot of dirty work that goes on at a military base, anything from storing fuel to handling chemicals and other substances that are, well, designed to kill folks on the other side of some imaginary line. That’s a fact of life. Sometimes this stuff is spilled, or forgotten, and the land underneath – and surrounding – the base takes a real beating.
Back in the late 1980s, when I was living in California, my area had two massive pieces of land that had been home to some really dirty tenants. One, in San Bernardino, was the old Norton Air Force Base, shut down in the first wave of base closures. The other, in Fontana, was the old Kaiser steel mill. Cleanup of the Kaiser site was estimated to be about $40 million, but the Norton site, as I recall, was far more contentious to rehabilitate. The steel mill site only had several mountains of slag, a PCB-rich area where they got rid of some old transformers, and some other relatively lightweight chemicals here and there. Norton, well, it was an air base; ‘nuff said.
Now, Norton (where one of my favorite celebrities, Gen. Chuck Yeager once commanded) is an international cargo airport. Kaiser? Well, after heavy talk of building an industrial park and a series of annexation wars, NASCAR came to town. The old steel mill is now the site of the California Speedway, a track that has brought much success to Jeff Gordon over the years.
But those are easier projecs. People don’t live at the cargo airport or race track.
Natural Home Magazine’s other favorites include a mixed-use project built on the old municipal airport site in Austin, Texas, 4,700 acres of reclaimed land at Denver’s old Stapleton Airport – the largest urban infill redevelopment project in the United States, and the new High Point project in Seattle, which replaces public housing. North Charleston is in some pretty fast company.
It’s nice to see North Charleston make this kind of Top Ten list for a change, and it’s especially nice to see a little green development at the old yards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)