LETTER: County’s land sale ignores Chapin residents’ concerns

Chapin residents spoke — clearly and repeatedly. They showed up. They participated in good faith. They voiced serious concerns about the future of their community.

Yet, five members of the Lexington County Council voted to move forward with the sale of more than 200 acres at the Chapin Business & Technology Park for a large mixed-use development that calls for a minimum of 600 new homes.

And that is only part of the picture. Combined with the nearly 400 homes planned by Mungo Homes on adjoining property, the Chapin area is looking at roughly 1,000 additional homes from these two developments alone.

This is about more than another development.

It is about representation.

Residents were not uninformed, absent or indifferent. They participated in the public process and made their concerns known. They raised questions about traffic, roads, infrastructure, schools, public services, quality of life and the cumulative impact of continued rapid growth.

Yet when the time came to vote, five council members — Beth Carrigg, Todd Cockrell, Todd Cullum, Clifford Fisher and Darrell Hudson — voted to move forward, which raises a fundamental question: Who, exactly, are you representing?

Lexington County Council members are elected by citizens — not developers, outside investors or those who stand to profit from the rapid expansion of our communities. Their responsibility is to the people who live here, raise their families here, pay taxes here and will live with the long-term consequences of the decisions they make.

When citizens take the time to participate in local government and voice clear concerns, only to watch their elected officials move forward anyway, it sends a troubling message: Public participation is welcome, but public opinion may ultimately be disposable.

That is not the kind of representation citizens should accept.

Chapin is already experiencing the effects of tremendous growth. Traffic and infrastructure are constant concerns, while pieces of the rural landscape and small-town character that have long defined this community continue to disappear.

Growth may be inevitable. But growth is not automatically progress, and development is not automatically beneficial simply because someone proposes it.

Responsible growth requires more than approving projects and addressing the consequences later. It means asking whether roads and infrastructure can accommodate additional development, whether public services can support it, what the cumulative effect of multiple developments will be and whether the long-term benefit truly outweighs the cost to the existing community.

Most importantly, it requires listening to the people who already live here.

The controversy has now escalated further. Lexington County has filed a lawsuit against the town of Chapin over sewer service for the Business & Technology Park. Regardless of how that legal dispute is ultimately resolved, it underscores just how consequential this development decision has become.

What troubles me most is the precedent this sets. We routinely encourage citizens to participate in government: attend meetings, contact elected officials, speak during public comment and make their voices heard.

But what happens when they do all of those things — and their elected officials still refuse to listen?

Elected office is a public trust. That trust is earned through representation, transparency and accountability.

I live in Lexington County Council District 6. I understand that Lexington County is divided into nine council districts. But I also pay taxes to Lexington County — not simply District 6. The votes of the other eight council members are not irrelevant to me.

The County Council makes decisions involving county property, spending, infrastructure and development that can have consequences far beyond the boundaries of an individual council district. Every Lexington County taxpayer has the right to question those decisions and expect answers from the officials who make them.

That is why the five council members who supported this decision owe the public more than broad references to “economic development,” “responsible growth,” “long-term planning,” “job creation,” “housing demand,” “staff recommendations” or “consistency with the comprehensive plan.” Those are broad talking points that serve to sidestep the question, not provide the clear, direct answers Chapin residents deserve. If those considerations justified approving this sale despite the opposition and concerns expressed by Chapin residents, then explain specifically why.

Show us the data.

Explain how the roads and infrastructure will accommodate this level of additional development. Explain the anticipated effects on schools and public services. Explain the cumulative impact of potentially 1,000 additional homes from these two developments. And explain why the factors supporting the sale outweighed the concerns of the people who already call this community home.

That is not an unreasonable request. It is the minimum level of accountability taxpayers should expect from the people making decisions on their behalf.

The citizens participated. They spoke. They did what representative government asks citizens to do.

Now the elected officials who voted for this decision should do their part and answer them.

Who, exactly, are you representing?

Kathy O’Quinn
Chapin