Developing a New Base

Developing a New Base

On a slab of land beside the Cooper River, the 2900 acre Charleston Naval Complex is one of the largest ports in the United States. With its closure in 1996 many people saw a doom for the Charleston economy. But with the Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority overseeing operations of the base closure, there was optimism for hope in the economy. Few knew how much could be gained from the ports, as well as Charleston Authorities. Apart from the obvious economical influences the base had on the city of Charleston, the redevelopment authority had to overcome a certain failure by using a little commercial and political maneuvering.

The Charleston Naval Complex is located on the west bank of the Cooper River about five miles north of Charleston, South Carolina. Many Naval commands are located on the complex such as the Naval Shipyard and Naval Fleet and Industrial Supply Center. But in 1993 the Base Realignment and Closure Commission listed that the majority of the Naval Commands were to be closed. Although many naval officers fought to keep the base in operation, their efforts were not enough and operational closure of the base occurred on April 1, 1996 (“Charleston Naval Station”). This proved to be a striking blow to the economy of the city of Charleston. With the loss of over 15,000 military and civilian jobs the Charleston economy was in peril.

In July 1993, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended closure of the property as well as the majority of the commands. The South Carolina General Assembly promptly passed legislation to establish the Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority, and operational closure of the base occurred on April 1, 1996 (“Charleston Naval Station”). Although the closure of the base was out of the hands of the Naval Forces present at the time, it was not, however, out of the Redevelopment Authority’s hands.

As soon as it was formed in 1994, the redevelopment authority went straight to work. Knowing that the only way to produce a profit for the Charleston economy would be to lease piers and sign tenants, the redevelopment authority wasted no time in getting more than 85 local, private, state and federal entities on the property (“Charleston Naval Station”). To this day, many of the same entities are still working out of the ports with much economical success.

Perhaps the hardest part for the redevelopment authority was seeing who would oversee the authority. The base is just a few miles upriver from the city of Charleston, city authorities believed that it was their right to oversee the operational withdrawal of the naval forces. But the base is located next to three different counties, and all three believed they should be allowed to oversee the withdrawal of the naval forces. This greedy attitude between the counties left South Carolina no choice but to take over the operational withdrawal. The state, however, did not want to cause any controversy between the city and counties, so the redevelopment board has representatives from the state, county and city (United States LAC 1-2). Jack A. Sprott, the director of the redevelopment agency, has been quoted saying, “There’s a lot of jealousy between Charleston and North Charleston and the political folks said this was the best way to handle it, and it’s worked pretty well. The only drawback is the city has zoning powers. We’ve had our lumps and bumps, but we’re in lock step now” (“Charleston Naval Base Redevelopment”).

With three miles of riverfront property, the former naval base presents hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate. The port includes twenty one piers and around 600 buildings, from large warehouses to visually appealing colonial style homes, some of which once housed admirals (Antonetti). So when the announcement became public in 1993 that the base would close, the immediate reaction can be described as one of “panic,” said Bill Antonetti, a naval officer on the base at the time of its closure. “It was gloom and doom all over Charleston” said Mr. Sprott, with the loss of an estimated 15,000 jobs (“Charleston Naval Station”). But as Sprott said the economic death bell many said would ring from the Navy base closing never sounded (Quick). The switch from the government work to private commercial projects required adjustment for all who remained. But in the past six years the redevelopment authority has managed to regain all of the lost jobs when the base closed with the arrival of new businesses throughout the region (Quick).

Perhaps the most intriguing controversy involved the northern end of the base. Because it is visually appealing to tourists as well as locals, the City of North Charleston saw an opportunity to develop a residential community. On the other hand the Charleston Naval Redevelopment Authority wanted a cargo operation (“Charleston Naval Station”). Eventually the city won the debate and now a community stands in the northern part of the base. In fact, James C. Bryan, chairman of the authority, expects to begin work on a waterfront park for the residents (Quick). In fact, the Naval complex is home to a magnet high school for students to attend (“Charleston Naval Station”).

So why were there so many opposed to the closure of the Naval