Bluffton Today
I hope you all had a suitably festive and patriotic Independence Day. In that spirit, I want to thank you for the calls and emails this last week. The system set in motion on the 4th of July, 1776, works when you contact your representative and let me know what is on your mind and how you think the government should function.
I thank you, and the founding fathers thank you as well. You continue to make their vision of representative democracy the light of the world.
We set a record for constituent contacts last week, breaking the previous mark by a wide margin. Most of the conversation had to do with the Sanford melodrama. I also had a chance to speak with many of you at the Farmer’s Market last Thursday, and the governor was the main topic.
You and I, as usual, are pretty much in synch on this sad situation. Regardless of our political inclinations, we all seem to think the governor continues to violate the Primary Rule of Holes, that is: when you are in a hole, you need to stop digging.
I spoke with Governor Sanford last week. Honestly, I’m concerned that the relentless international condemnation and ridicule has begun to affect his perspective and equilibrium. I don’t say that to be unkind at all. I have enormous respect and admiration for the governor and particularly for the office he holds. I hope he can get some time to sort out his circumstances.
Right now, to use the biblical terms he has come to favor—Mark Sanford is reaping the whirlwind.
For those of us whose answer to this annoying distraction is to go fishing, there is a new wrinkle to the pastime. You now need a license to fish in salt water, regardless of whether it is from a boat or from a dock or even from the bank. As you know, I’m not a big fan of new taxes. However, this new license is as close to a user fee as we can get. Also, the fee schedule of $10 for in-state and $35 for out-of-state is pretty nominal, with the proceeds going to keep the fishery in good shape with better management and enhanced enforcement of conservation laws.
One of the beneficiaries of this new funding is the Waddell Mariculture Center out on Sawmill Creek Road here in Greater Bluffton. Al Stokes and his crew have absorbed more than their share of budget cuts recently while still managing to carry on with their mission. They have sought and found a creative mix of private monies and grants from individuals and groups that understand the absolutely essential role that the Waddell Mariculture Center plays in keeping our game fish populations healthy. You will hear much more in the very near future about this great facility and how they do a tremendous job of keeping the Lowcountry an ecological treasure, as well as fantastic place to fish.
Next week, barring more melodrama, I want to talk about the new port and how it’s progressing.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Simply put: I am disappointed
Bluffton Today
Like many of you, I am saddened and disappointed by the recent revelations concerning Governor Mark Sanford. My personal inclination is to let this matter evolve on its own without further comment. However, considering the volume of interest and concern expressed in the many calls and emails I have received on this, it seems that I need to devote this one, and only one, column to this dispiriting matter.
In my view, we need to bisect our treatment of last week’s disclosure. There is the personal side, which is one of undiluted sadness, and then there is the political/professional side, which is another thing altogether.
From my personal point of view, this whole international soap opera is very close to excruciating for me. With the exception of the woman from Argentina, nearly every one of the characters involved is a personal friend of mine. I like and admire both the governor and the first lady. Their family reminds me of my family, which was a gaggle of rambunctious boys with two loving parents. I also know most of the staff people in the governor’s office who are now under the glare of constant media. Even the security team that lost their charge for nearly a week are folks that I think highly of and chat with from time to time. While I feel bad for them all, it is Jenny and the boys that have my most heartfelt sympathy. They didn’t deserve any of this.
The political/professional side of this mess is not nearly so problematic for me. Simply put: I am disappointed. The bad behavior of the governor has created an unfortunate distraction for those of us who take seriously our commitments to deliver our state to higher ground above the current flood of economic distress. I wanted to write a column this week on what a great job Doug Robertson is doing on the Ports Authority Board. Instead, you get to hear me rant about the fallout from our governor’s big adventure.
Eventually, the General Assembly will have to sort through all the nagging questions that flow from this incident. Was public money misspent? How do three agencies tasked with protecting the chief executive manage to lose him for almost a week? Was staff complicit in the “disappearance”? How did the tracking device on the state vehicle driven by the governor become disabled?
I would prefer to use our legislative time figuring out how to educate our children, or protect our waterways, or how to create a proper tax structure that won’t collapse under financial strain, than sort out the particulars of the governor’s mid-life crisis.
Many of your calls and emails asked whether Gov Sanford should resign, be impeached, or allowed to stay and try to redeem himself. My answer is this: Your representative will not join any effort to impeach or force the governor to resign. My sense is that the succession is potentially so troublesome, we would be better off with the governor for the next eighteen months.
What may occur is the international soap opera may very well continue to grow until the Sanford family will have no chance at peace or reconciliation until the governor leaves the stage. Summer is a slow time for news and this affair has been a gold mine for the 24-hour news outlets. When you overlay the left-right battle between Fox and MSNBC, we have a story that will have long legs. All the while, our state is viewed internationally in the light of shame and ridicule.
In short: the governor can stay, but the story needs to go.
Like many of you, I am saddened and disappointed by the recent revelations concerning Governor Mark Sanford. My personal inclination is to let this matter evolve on its own without further comment. However, considering the volume of interest and concern expressed in the many calls and emails I have received on this, it seems that I need to devote this one, and only one, column to this dispiriting matter.
In my view, we need to bisect our treatment of last week’s disclosure. There is the personal side, which is one of undiluted sadness, and then there is the political/professional side, which is another thing altogether.
From my personal point of view, this whole international soap opera is very close to excruciating for me. With the exception of the woman from Argentina, nearly every one of the characters involved is a personal friend of mine. I like and admire both the governor and the first lady. Their family reminds me of my family, which was a gaggle of rambunctious boys with two loving parents. I also know most of the staff people in the governor’s office who are now under the glare of constant media. Even the security team that lost their charge for nearly a week are folks that I think highly of and chat with from time to time. While I feel bad for them all, it is Jenny and the boys that have my most heartfelt sympathy. They didn’t deserve any of this.
The political/professional side of this mess is not nearly so problematic for me. Simply put: I am disappointed. The bad behavior of the governor has created an unfortunate distraction for those of us who take seriously our commitments to deliver our state to higher ground above the current flood of economic distress. I wanted to write a column this week on what a great job Doug Robertson is doing on the Ports Authority Board. Instead, you get to hear me rant about the fallout from our governor’s big adventure.
Eventually, the General Assembly will have to sort through all the nagging questions that flow from this incident. Was public money misspent? How do three agencies tasked with protecting the chief executive manage to lose him for almost a week? Was staff complicit in the “disappearance”? How did the tracking device on the state vehicle driven by the governor become disabled?
I would prefer to use our legislative time figuring out how to educate our children, or protect our waterways, or how to create a proper tax structure that won’t collapse under financial strain, than sort out the particulars of the governor’s mid-life crisis.
Many of your calls and emails asked whether Gov Sanford should resign, be impeached, or allowed to stay and try to redeem himself. My answer is this: Your representative will not join any effort to impeach or force the governor to resign. My sense is that the succession is potentially so troublesome, we would be better off with the governor for the next eighteen months.
What may occur is the international soap opera may very well continue to grow until the Sanford family will have no chance at peace or reconciliation until the governor leaves the stage. Summer is a slow time for news and this affair has been a gold mine for the 24-hour news outlets. When you overlay the left-right battle between Fox and MSNBC, we have a story that will have long legs. All the while, our state is viewed internationally in the light of shame and ridicule.
In short: the governor can stay, but the story needs to go.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Governer earned his veto overrides
Bluffton Today
The one-day wrap to the session was over by close of business on Tuesday. Most of the outstanding business had to do with dealing with the governor’s vetoes and finalizing the creation of a tax reform study group that will look seriously at how we raise money to do the people’s business in the future. (Yes, Karen, we are looking at the Fair Tax.)
All 10 of the vetoes were overridden. There were two pieces of legislation that became law after the overrides that, for the life of me, I cannot understand why they warranted a veto. One was the Buy South Carolina legislation, and the other was the Payday Lending Bill.
The Buy South Carolina legislation was simply a bill to give a preference to in-state suppliers when the state makes purchases. In my view, this was first and foremost, a jobs bill. Even if there was a price difference, which is often negligible, between the in-state and out-of-state product, the fact that local products mean local jobs makes the difference meaningless. This was clear to virtually every member of the General Assembly, but somehow escaped the governor. It was not an agonizing decision to override this veto.
You have heard me more than a few times talk about how jobs and economic development will trump, in my book, ideological purity any day, any time. There is a general consensus in the legislature that the governor’s veto in matters such as this has to do with a particular brand of libertarianism, and a constituency largely beyond the borders of our state. This may or may not be accurate-- I can’t say. I do know that my constituency is you, my neighbors and friends in District 118, with a view to the greater good and prosperity of our state. I represent you and I am responsible to you and for you.
The second veto that I think was particularly ill considered was of the Payday Lending Bill. This bill had been in the pipeline for literally years. Opinion in the legislature was all over the map, from outright banning the industry to allowing them to essentially self-regulate. The biggest issue was what constitutes fair regulation of an industry that many believe takes advantage of people who can least afford it, and who are most vulnerable to the temptation of “easy credit”.
We struggled with this for several sessions, hearing from all the stakeholders and hearing story after story of people getting over their heads into unmanageable debt. We pretty much wrestled it to the ground and came up with a bill that was reluctantly agreed to by both industry and consumer advocates. It was ultimately passed by the House 102-6 and in the Senate by 41-4.
The legislation puts into place significant safeguards to protect consumers and also creates a database to make sure that particularly improvident borrowers are not “flipping” loans, that is taking out new loans to help retire old ones. Depending upon where you stand, this legislation is either an interim step toward ultimately banning the industry, much like we did with video gambling, or a reasonable step toward regulating a problematic but necessary business which provides emergency liquidity to persons unable to access capital from traditional sources.
The governor vetoed the bill on libertarian grounds: people need to be free to make their own mistakes and live with the consequences. Libertarianism makes for good sound bites but oftentimes ends up looking like the law of the jungle in practice. The vote to override was not even close.
The one-day wrap to the session was over by close of business on Tuesday. Most of the outstanding business had to do with dealing with the governor’s vetoes and finalizing the creation of a tax reform study group that will look seriously at how we raise money to do the people’s business in the future. (Yes, Karen, we are looking at the Fair Tax.)
All 10 of the vetoes were overridden. There were two pieces of legislation that became law after the overrides that, for the life of me, I cannot understand why they warranted a veto. One was the Buy South Carolina legislation, and the other was the Payday Lending Bill.
The Buy South Carolina legislation was simply a bill to give a preference to in-state suppliers when the state makes purchases. In my view, this was first and foremost, a jobs bill. Even if there was a price difference, which is often negligible, between the in-state and out-of-state product, the fact that local products mean local jobs makes the difference meaningless. This was clear to virtually every member of the General Assembly, but somehow escaped the governor. It was not an agonizing decision to override this veto.
You have heard me more than a few times talk about how jobs and economic development will trump, in my book, ideological purity any day, any time. There is a general consensus in the legislature that the governor’s veto in matters such as this has to do with a particular brand of libertarianism, and a constituency largely beyond the borders of our state. This may or may not be accurate-- I can’t say. I do know that my constituency is you, my neighbors and friends in District 118, with a view to the greater good and prosperity of our state. I represent you and I am responsible to you and for you.
The second veto that I think was particularly ill considered was of the Payday Lending Bill. This bill had been in the pipeline for literally years. Opinion in the legislature was all over the map, from outright banning the industry to allowing them to essentially self-regulate. The biggest issue was what constitutes fair regulation of an industry that many believe takes advantage of people who can least afford it, and who are most vulnerable to the temptation of “easy credit”.
We struggled with this for several sessions, hearing from all the stakeholders and hearing story after story of people getting over their heads into unmanageable debt. We pretty much wrestled it to the ground and came up with a bill that was reluctantly agreed to by both industry and consumer advocates. It was ultimately passed by the House 102-6 and in the Senate by 41-4.
The legislation puts into place significant safeguards to protect consumers and also creates a database to make sure that particularly improvident borrowers are not “flipping” loans, that is taking out new loans to help retire old ones. Depending upon where you stand, this legislation is either an interim step toward ultimately banning the industry, much like we did with video gambling, or a reasonable step toward regulating a problematic but necessary business which provides emergency liquidity to persons unable to access capital from traditional sources.
The governor vetoed the bill on libertarian grounds: people need to be free to make their own mistakes and live with the consequences. Libertarianism makes for good sound bites but oftentimes ends up looking like the law of the jungle in practice. The vote to override was not even close.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Developers can't see into the future, either
Bluffton Today
Before we begin, I’d like to make a comment on the recent revelations concerning the Sea Turtle Center and Crescent Resources. As a businessman and developer, I respect the courage and creativity that have gone into both these enterprises.
Lori Kaylor, developer of the Sea Turtle Complex, is a friend whom I hold in high regard. She is also a smart woman who put together a great project out on the Buckwalter Parkway that has provided a number of small entrepreneurs a venue for putting their ideas to the commercial test. In my view, she has been treated badly by the press for failing to anticipate what the smartest minds in both the public and private sectors also failed to predict, that is the collapse of the real estate market.
Similarly, Crescent Resources, the developer of two of the flagship properties in the Lowcountry, Palmetto Bluff and Oldfield, is being forced by circumstances not of its making, into arrangements that seemed vanishingly improbable just a few months ago.
It seems that sometimes folks whose ideas and business practices are above reproach are diminished by macroeconomic forces put into play by entities for whom nothing is unthinkable-- who view reasonable regulation as something to be gamed and finessed-- to the detriment of those who play by the rules.
While the General Assembly can’t do too much about credit default swaps or the more arcane derivatives that pushed the economy off the cliff, we can do something about the more banal forms of bad business practice. Such was the case with the big banks that issue credit cards and unfortunately seek to maximize profit by playing games with interest rates and terms and conditions of use.
Most of you know that I was one of the originators of the credit card legislation in South Carolina, which was later adopted by the federal government. The reason for this was that I heard from so many of you about what you were enduring at the hand of the credit card issuers. The stories were many, and each one made me madder than the last. As I started to work on the legislation, we were confronted with a barrage of hardball lobbying from the banking industry. This is the same banking industry that played a key role in the above-mentioned “macroeconomic forces” that are contributing to the local dislocations about which we are reading.
Let me be clear on this: this is not about your local bankers, the folks that you might see having lunch at the Sippin Cow or May River Grill. Small and moderate size banks managed to maintain good, fiscally sound, conservative business practices when their larger competitors were exploring the brave new world of hyper-leverage. The smaller guys also didn’t even quiver when the giants were near collapse. They also didn’t need to break out the small print to extract undeserved dollars from you with questionable business practices.
Friends, this whole mess was quite a revelation for me. It will also influence the decisions about where my personal business is conducted.
I will be out of the office for most of this week, so we may be a little delayed in answering calls and emails.
Next week, I will have something to say about legislative vetoes and the balance of power in the South Carolina General Assembly. In the meantime, try to keep cool, wear sunscreen, and act in a manner that respects our May River.
Before we begin, I’d like to make a comment on the recent revelations concerning the Sea Turtle Center and Crescent Resources. As a businessman and developer, I respect the courage and creativity that have gone into both these enterprises.
Lori Kaylor, developer of the Sea Turtle Complex, is a friend whom I hold in high regard. She is also a smart woman who put together a great project out on the Buckwalter Parkway that has provided a number of small entrepreneurs a venue for putting their ideas to the commercial test. In my view, she has been treated badly by the press for failing to anticipate what the smartest minds in both the public and private sectors also failed to predict, that is the collapse of the real estate market.
Similarly, Crescent Resources, the developer of two of the flagship properties in the Lowcountry, Palmetto Bluff and Oldfield, is being forced by circumstances not of its making, into arrangements that seemed vanishingly improbable just a few months ago.
It seems that sometimes folks whose ideas and business practices are above reproach are diminished by macroeconomic forces put into play by entities for whom nothing is unthinkable-- who view reasonable regulation as something to be gamed and finessed-- to the detriment of those who play by the rules.
While the General Assembly can’t do too much about credit default swaps or the more arcane derivatives that pushed the economy off the cliff, we can do something about the more banal forms of bad business practice. Such was the case with the big banks that issue credit cards and unfortunately seek to maximize profit by playing games with interest rates and terms and conditions of use.
Most of you know that I was one of the originators of the credit card legislation in South Carolina, which was later adopted by the federal government. The reason for this was that I heard from so many of you about what you were enduring at the hand of the credit card issuers. The stories were many, and each one made me madder than the last. As I started to work on the legislation, we were confronted with a barrage of hardball lobbying from the banking industry. This is the same banking industry that played a key role in the above-mentioned “macroeconomic forces” that are contributing to the local dislocations about which we are reading.
Let me be clear on this: this is not about your local bankers, the folks that you might see having lunch at the Sippin Cow or May River Grill. Small and moderate size banks managed to maintain good, fiscally sound, conservative business practices when their larger competitors were exploring the brave new world of hyper-leverage. The smaller guys also didn’t even quiver when the giants were near collapse. They also didn’t need to break out the small print to extract undeserved dollars from you with questionable business practices.
Friends, this whole mess was quite a revelation for me. It will also influence the decisions about where my personal business is conducted.
I will be out of the office for most of this week, so we may be a little delayed in answering calls and emails.
Next week, I will have something to say about legislative vetoes and the balance of power in the South Carolina General Assembly. In the meantime, try to keep cool, wear sunscreen, and act in a manner that respects our May River.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
