Issue 7

A Tale of Two Towns: Rural Communities Divided Over Growth

A good deal of research has examined the ecological impacts of sprawl; other work has looked at the social inequities created when middle-income residents abandon central cities, leaving lower income residents to deal with problems that typically accompany urban life, such as decaying infrastructure, problem schools, and high crime rates. Far less scholarship compares acceptance of urban expansion in communities that are socioeconomically and racially separated.

In 2002, I worked with Myron Floyd from North Carolina State University on a study of two towns in rural upper Charleston County, SC, where perceptions about future development are in conflict. The contestation involves different visions of growth for the rural area. Exploratory research suggests these differences are highly correlated with socioeconomic status, which, in turn, is closely aligned with race.

Over the past half century, the pace of development on the Sea Islands off the South Carolina coast has intensified. From the end of the Civil War until the 1950s, descendants of African slaves (the Gullah or Geechee people) were the primary inhabitants on South Carolina’s barrier islands. Now, these places have been developed into popular resorts with recreational amenities geared toward the affluent resident and vacationer and the historical Gullah population has been largely displaced by highincome property owners.

Similar population and economic pressures are now impacting some of the coastal counties that are part of the Lowcountry near Charleston, SC. While South Carolina’s population increased roughly 15 percent from 1990 to 2000, the increase was more than 28 percent in the State’s eight coastal counties. Despite growth and development, substantial traditional African-American populations remain in South Carolina’s coastal counties. Their socioeconomic status, however, differs greatly from that of migrant and long-time resident whites.

For instance, the percentage of the population living below the poverty level in rural upper Charleston County is 16.9 percent, which approximates the poverty rate for the county as a whole (16.7 percent), but the poverty rate for African Americans in the area is about five times higher than for whites (23.5 percent and 5 percent, respectively). Upper Charleston County contains approximately 1 percent of Charleston’s population, with African Americans comprising about 64 percent of the 5,091 residents and whites 35 percent.

The preliminary study we conducted shows that socioeconomic differences between African Americans and whites contribute greatly to racial differences in perceptions of urban growth. Using interviews and content analysis of articles in the local press, we compared municipal responses to urban growth for two rural municipalities “Newborn” and “Seaside Village” (pseudonyms) from 2002 to 2003. The town council in Newborn, where all the elected officials are African American, has been much more receptive to development initiatives than that of Seaside Village, where all the elected officials are white. Also, within Newborn, African Americans appear more willing than whites to accept development. Newborn’s population of 1,195 is two-thirds African American and one-third white; Seaside Village’s smaller population of 459 is roughly 93 percent white and 7 percent African American.

Clean Water Becomes Controversial

Newborn was incorporated in 1992 in response to urban expansion from metropolitan Charleston. Residents in the then unincorporated rural area feared their community would be consumed by the upscale development that had transformed other nearby towns into suburban bedroom communities. Newborn is composed of three discontinuous residential and commercial segments, located within 11 square miles along a U.S. highway. The eastern edge of the Francis Marion National Forest is also included within the town’s borders.

In 1997, Newborn passed a referendum to establish a municipal water system because many residents had contaminated wells. In 1999, a community-based environmental group conducted an assessment of the study area and reported that substandard housing, lack of potable water, and sanitation were critical threats for area residents. A number of residents reported that sewage from poorly constructed septic systems was contaminating well water. These problems were especially prevalent among African Americans. In the same year, the town also proposed a referendum on a sewer system, but cancelled it because of mounting criticism from a small, mostly white group opposed to growth.

After 7 years of debate and controversy surrounding public water, the town began construction of the water system in 2004, funded in part by a U.S. Department of Agriculture grant. Opponents of the system remain firm in their conviction that municipal water will attract developers; city officials maintain that the water system represents a form of environmental justice for low-income residents with poorly constructed wells.

Seaside Village is about 10 miles northeast of Newborn. The town was incorporated in the late 1850s and has a long, distinguished history dating back to Native American settlement. Residents have a deep history and strong sense of place for the town. Seaside Village proper is surrounded by predominantly rural, unincorporated African- American communities that have a Seaside Village mailing address but are not included within the town’s political boundaries. In contrast to Newborn officials, Seaside Village’s governing body is adamantly opposed to any type of development that would detract from the town’s rural character. For the most part, residents here have properly functioning wells, and most are middle-to-upper income wage earners.

A Clash of Perceptions

Our analysis suggested that African-American leaders in Newborn view urban expansion as one means of overcoming generational poverty. A public water system would not only provide an immediate remedy to the problem of contaminated water but also be a conduit for longer term economic stimulation. Newborn officials see improved infrastructure and the subsequent location of commercial establishments as bringing much needed jobs and opportunities for low-income residents.

The proposed infrastructure merely highlighted what many described as long-time race and class divisions in upper Charleston County. Middle-class residents (most of whom were white) feared that the type of growth that could result from the installation of public water and sewer would severely compromise the area’s rural character and unique ecosystem, specifically the ecological diversity contained in the Francis Marion National Forest. These residents also warned that suburban development would displace poor black residents from their property because of rising rents and property taxes. Growth opponents pointed to the history of displaced African Americans from the Sea Islands and also to more recent cases of blacks being forced from long-time African- American communities closer to Charleston. Growth proponents countered that those opposing the infrastructure are a privileged class not constrained by persistent poverty or racial discrimination.

In late 2005, a regional growth management agreement to limit development near the Francis Marion National Forest was initiated by larger, urban municipalities to the south of Newborn. The proposal stipulated that 11 area municipalities, including Newborn, take steps toward restricting growth in the rural Lowcountry by limiting housing densities to one home for every 25 acres near the national forest and by prohibiting new water and sewer lines in north Charleston County. Newborn town council voted unanimously against the agreement, contending that growth is necessary for the town’s survival. Newborn’s vote effectively defeated the initiative for the time being because it had to be agreed upon by all municipalities in order to take effect.

How to Cross the Racial Divide

It was apparent after analyzing both the interviews and press reports that the marginal status of African Americans, compared to whites in the area, is a significant contributor to racial stances on development. The responses of these two populations point to a more fundamental problem in rural America—that of persistent rural poverty. Remarks from two research respondents (M and B) indicate that the quality of people’s lives is central when considering long-term sustainable development. Life quality must be addressed before any compromise on growth can be reached:

M: We started out by … putting together several groups that looked at the quality of life resources—we looked at water, we looked at tourism. We wanted to change and develop and make it (development) meet our needs without this massive development of our area.

B: Which is one of the things I think is our primary purpose, that we have to raise the quality of life so … people aren’t so anxious for development. If you can raise the quality of life and offer opportunity … then there’s no need for massive development. People aren’t so vulnerable to big developers coming in and saying we’ll offer you $500,000 for your place. In order for that to happen, we’re going to have to break down the separation of the races. In order for that really to occur, for this area not to be overdeveloped, we’re going to have to break down the racial divide.

Mallard Ducks Swimming
(Photo by Larry Korhnak, University of Florida)