|
Port opponents pin hopes on disgraced economist
By Dan McCue
Staff Writer
Two weeks after they broke off negotiations with the S.C. State Ports Authority over enhanced environmental safeguards at the planned Charleston Naval Base cargo terminal, opponents of the terminal are trying a new approach to stymie the project—calling into question an economic impact study by former Charleston Southern University economics professor Al Parish.
Parish pleaded guilty earlier this month in a sensational multimillion dollar investment fraud case, but for years, he was considered the region’s “go-to guy” for economic analysis.
In light of his guilty plea, the S.C. Coastal Conservation League contends Parish’s 2002 conclusion that nearly 282,000 South Carolina jobs are tied to the port is suspect at best. At worst, said Dana Beach, executive director of the watchdog group, it may have been payback for an interest-free $76,000 loan the SPA extended to Charleston Southern in return for Parish’s services.
The conservation league said other studies have suggested trade’s economic impact on the state ranges from a low of 5,000 jobs created to about 83,000 jobs created.
“Given the disparities between these studies, who really has a clue?” Beach said. “This isn’t some academic exercise we’re talking about, this is about a project potentially diminishing the quality of life for all of us. The bottom line here is the state has been duped by collusion between ports authority management and an economist who has been discredited.”
The group wants a new, independent economic impact analysis done for the project and for the ports authority to stop spending money on the new terminal until the study is completed.
Byron Miller, the SPA’s spokesman, strongly denied the conservation league’s insinuations of wrongdoing, saying the ports authority has clearly described its past relationship with CSU and Al Parish, detailing its agreement with the university and providing documentation publicly.
Further, he said, Parish’s numbers were not relied upon to secure permits from the nine state and federal agencies that have given the project a green light.
“Of the 5,000-plus pages of studies included in the final Environmental Impact Statement (issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in April), only about five sentences were dedicated to the results of (Parish’s study),” Miller said. “The ports authority is not expanding because a study by Al Parish suggested it was imperative to do so. We’re expanding because our customers need new capacity at the Port of Charleston.”
Parish’s study, which was done in 2002 and released early in 2003, looked at the economic impact of trade through the state’s public port facilities. At the time, the ports authority was on the verge of abandoning plans to build a 12-berth “global gateway” terminal on Daniel
Island.
It did not consider the impact of developing a new terminal at the former Navy base.
There is no evidence, Miller said, that Parish’s study, which was based on a 53-sector “dynamic econometric model”, was wrong.
Economist Doug Woodward and the University of South Carolina’s Division of Research are currently working on an updated economic impact study. Miller said the work is being done because Parish’s numbers are old, not because of his recent notoriety.
The conservation league has been challenging permits the state issued for the project and an associated port access road linking the planned facility to Interstate 26 since earlier this year, but has consistently failed to get the permitting decision overturned.
For months, the conservation league maintained it wasn’t against the terminal per se, but rather, simply wanted greater air and water quality safeguards put in place before the terminal opens.
In mid-October, Beach told the Charleston Regional Business Journal that the group now opposes the terminal, adding that his group walked away from discussions with the ports authority because the quasi-state agency “refused to offer us anything of significance.”
Miller said the SPA was disappointed that the conservation league called off the talks.
“They’ve chosen not to meet with us, although we’ve invited a meaningful discussion on these issues,” he said. “In any case, the ports authority will continue to work with (the state Department of Health and Environmental Control), the (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and other reasonable people on additional air quality efforts.”
As proof of the SPA’s good intentions, Miller pointed to its recent decision to use ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel three years in advance of the federal requirement to do so.
The SPA is also cooperating on solutions to traffic challenges and has committed $250,000 to an independent regional transportation plan for the Charleston peninsula’s neck area.
The conservation league’s opposition to the Navy base terminal comes four years after its successful effort to redirect port expansion from Daniel Island to the site now under development.
Dan McCue is a staff writer for the Business Journal. E-mail him at dmccue@setcommedia.com.
|
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version