View this email in your browser (*|ARCHIVE|*)
https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/commentary/commentary-laurel-hill-parkway-is-an-unnecessary-irreversible-mistake/article_d7ad00cc-1b6b-11ee-8c92-8b0c6ef132fa.html
Today is Election Day in the Town of Mount Pleasant, and Smart Growth 41 encourages all residents to make their voices heard at the ballot box.
As part of our ongoing efforts to educate the public on the future of Highway 41, we reached out to every candidate running for Mayor and Town Council with a simple question: Where do you stand on the proposed Laurel Hill Parkway and the current Highway 41 expansion design?
We’ve compiled their responses into a candidate questionnaire and scorecard to help voters make informed decisions. (https://smartgrowth41.org/)
**Please note, some candidates have provided updates since their initial responses. This is reflected both on the survey grid and in their responses as well**
Polls across Mount Pleasant will be open from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. If you’re unsure where to vote, you can find your polling location by visiting scvotes.gov.
Thank you for staying engaged — and for continuing to fight for smarter growth, better infrastructure, and a Highway 41 solution that works for all of Mount Pleasant.
** Full Candidate Responses Below
————————————————————
The following questions were asked of the candidates. You will find their responses below.
1) Do you support any version of Alternative 7 for the Highway 41 expansion project, including the current “Road to Compromise” proposal?
Will Haynie: I do not support the Road to Compromise Plan as long as the “Southern Parkway” through Laurel Hill Park is in the design. As Mayor, I spearheaded the vote by Council years ago to force the removal of Alternative 7-B that would have re-routed traffic onto Bessemer and into Park West. Town legal counsel advises that the vote negating Alternative 7-B is still authoritative.
Curt Thomas: I support the principle of seeking a balanced, context-sensitive solution for the Highway 41 corridor that relieves congestion, improves safety and evacuation capacity, while minimizing impacts to neighborhoods, natural resources, and parks. However, I would not commit in advance to any single proposed alternative, including Alternative 7 or the “Road to Compromise,” without careful review, further public vetting, and coordination with SCDOT, Charleston County, and relevant stakeholders.
I wish our leadership had worked more closely with the County earlier instead of waiting until now. We have had almost five years to collaborate and voice our community concerns at the table. Because of this delay, we risk losing the 60 million dollars that has already been allocated for this project. If that funding is reallocated to another project elsewhere in Charleston County, our residents will be left without relief from current traffic congestion.
As a former state trooper, I am also deeply concerned that if we lose this funding due to inaction, it could impact our hurricane evacuation route. The volume of traffic leaving the Park West and Dunes West area during an evacuation is already a challenge, and without these improvements, our residents could face dangerous delays in a true emergency.
I am open to a compromise version of the project, but it must be modified to be more community-sensitive, data-driven, and shaped by meaningful public engagement.
Alex Crosby: No, I do not support Alternative 7.
Jenny DeSart: I would support any sort of version that shows purpose and intent and makes sense for Mount Pleasant. The Road to Compromise proposal is not supported by so many residents in Park West and Dunes West, and I do not support this. I think we need to figure out a viable alternative to present as time is limited. A viable alternative that considers both the Phillips community and Park West and Dunes West as well as other residents involved in this area as they are directly impacted by these decisions and should be involved in the process.
Brianna Harmon: No.
John Iacofano: I do not support Alternative 7 or the current “Road to Compromise” proposal. I believe the most practical and responsible approach is to improve the existing Highway 41 corridor and Bessemer Road, rather than pushing traffic around neighborhoods through Laurel Hill County Park.
We can achieve meaningful relief by adding a center turn lane on Bessemer Road, improving intersections, and investing in traffic flow at both Highway 17 and 41. These improvements would help alleviate congestion without dividing communities or disturbing parkland.
I also support the “4-3-4” concept — four lanes south of the Phillips community, three lanes through it, and four lanes north toward the Wando bridge — as a balanced near-term solution. In reality, I think we all know that within 10–20 years, there will be pressure to widen the entire corridor to four lanes. We should plan for that future responsibly now, without prolonging the process any more than necessary.
As a Mount Pleasant Town Councilmember, I attended the County Council meeting when this issue was on the agenda. Despite representing the community directly affected by this project, I was not given the floor to speak, and some members of County Council were downright rude in their handling of the discussion. I also spoke at the DHEC meeting to confirm my position publicly and ensure that Mount Pleasant’s voice was included in the record.
Perry Rourk: I do not support any version of Alternative 7, including the current “Road to Compromise”. I have attended multiple meetings, including the DHEC meeting, where I voiced my opposition to the “Road to Compromise.” I have also attended Charleston County Council meetings regarding Highway 41 and intended to speak at the most recent one, but the Council did not provide the public with that opportunity.
Criag Russack: I will not support any version until I have the documents in hand and actually physically walk the site plan to see how if any adverse effects it has on the residents. I am as you know not a council member at this time and would be negligent in making a solid position without all the facts.
Gary Santos: [No responses received]
Mike Tinkey: I am for alternatives where the positive and negative impacts of the Hwy 41 project are equitably shared and have the least impact on the environment. Should the remote opportunity exist to go back to the drawing board this would be a guiding goal for me.
Kathryn Whitaker: I do not support the current “Road to Compromise” proposal or any version of Alternative 7 as it stands today. The process has left too many unanswered questions about environmental impact, neighborhood access, and long-term traffic benefits. I would support a solution that genuinely relieves congestion, protects surrounding communities, and reflects transparent collaboration between the Town, County, and residents.
2) Do you support any future widening of Dunes West Boulevard or further widening of Park West Boulevard?
Will Haynie: I do not because the intent of that would be to shift existing traffic from HWY 41 onto our neighborhood roads and that is not in the purpose statement of the HWY 41 improvement plan.
Curt Thomas: I do not support indiscriminate widening of Dunes West Boulevard or Park West Boulevard. Any potential widening must be based on comprehensive studies that consider traffic demand, safety, drainage, and environmental impacts, as well as the overall goals of the Town’s comprehensive plan.
If future studies show that limited widening or turn-lane improvements could ease bottlenecks without harming neighborhood character or the environment, I would be open to those targeted solutions. However, I would insist that any proposal be fully vetted through community meetings and expert review before any action is taken.
Alex Crosby: I do not support further widening of Dunes West Blvd or Park West Blvd.
Jenny DeSart: I believe in talking to the citizens that are most affected by these decisions. If the residents of Dunes West & Park West do not wish to have these roads widened, then I do not think they should be. If there is an alternative viable option proposed that includes this concept, then I would need to discuss this with the citizens of these communities prior to stating a firm response on this issue as they are the ones directly affected by it. From my understanding, this is currently a big no from the residents, so my current response is no.
Brianna Harmon: No
John Iacofano: At this time, I do not support future widening of Dunes West Boulevard or Park West Boulevard.
Our focus should be on smart traffic management and infrastructure optimization, not simply adding lanes. Before considering additional widening, we need to ensure that traffic light timing, turn lanes, and alternate route options are fully optimized. Expanding these roads could encourage more cut-through traffic and negatively impact neighborhood character.
Perry Rourk: I would be willing to explore the potential widening of Dunes West Boulevard from the Highway 41 (Dunes West Blvd / Rivertowne Parkway intersection) to the Bessemer Road roundabout, but only to address current traffic congestion in that area, not as an alternative route for Highway 41.
Craig Russack: I do not support widening Dunes West or Park West Blvd at this time.
Gary Santos: [No responses received]
Mike Tinkey: NO
Karthryn Whitaker: Not at this time. Widening alone is not a sustainable fix for congestion, as it often simply moves the bottleneck. Our focus should be on traffic-flow improvements, signal coordination, and the 17-41 intersection before additional widening is considered. AI models should be able to run large data sets and help us figure out a real solution for congestion on this road. Any proposal should include that full traffic analysis and resident input.
3) Do you support any Highway 41 expansion proposal that includes adding a new road between Highway 41 and Park West Boulevard through Laurel County Park?
Will Haynie: Absolutely not, and I made a point to speak against it at the DHEC public hearing at Wando High School in the summer of 2024 and I personally delivered Town Council’s resolution opposing it to Charleston County Council, incurring the verbal wrath of most of the County Council members.
Curt Thomas: I do not support routing a new connector road through Laurel Hill County Park unless all less impactful alternatives have been exhaustively evaluated and found unworkable. Parks and open spaces are essential to our community’s character, environmental health, and quality of life.
A road through Laurel Hill County Park could have significant negative effects on wetlands, wildlife, and recreational use. This option should only be considered an absolute last resort after full environmental and community review. My position is to protect parkland and preserve its public purpose whenever possible.
Alex Crosby: No, I do not support putting a road through Laurel Hill County Park.
Jenny DeSart: No. The town of Mount Pleasant has spoken. This is something that is not wanted.
Brianna Harmon: I do not support a road through Laurel Hill County Park. Cutting through a beautiful natural park is a sickening option and doing so still does not alleviate the traffic concerns.
John Iacofano: I do not support adding a new road through Laurel Hill County Park. That park is a community and environmental treasure that must remain preserved for public use and ecological protection. Once we open it to vehicle traffic, it will never be the same. Infrastructure solutions should not come at the cost of losing protected natural spaces.
Perry Rourk: I do not support any expansion proposal of Highway 41 that would put a road through Laurel Hill Park. The current plan for the proposed Laurel Hill Parkway would run adjacent to and duplicate Bessemer Road. I believe it would be more responsible to study adding turn lanes on Bessemer Road to improve accessibility, safety, and traffic flow for residents. The current plan also adds more than $40 million to the project cost, along with future maintenance expenses that would ultimately fall on Mount Pleasant taxpayers.
Craig Russack: I do not see a point in adding a road through a park if there is no evidence to support it will actually be an effective means to alleviate traffic flow.
Gary Santos: [No responses received]
Mike Tinkey: NO
Kathryn Whitaker: No. Laurel Hill County Park is a vital green space for Mount Pleasant residents, and cutting a new road through it would permanently alter that natural asset.
4) Mount Pleasant Town Council recently passed a resolution opposing Highway 41 expansion project and is now considering a measure that would withdraw municipal consent from the project. This would force Charleston County to either attempt taking of the land needed from the Town via eminent domain or a redesign of the “Road to Compromise.” Do you support the resolution? And if you are elected to Mount Pleasant Town Council would you support a measure to withdraw municipal consent?
Will Haynie: I have met with town legal counsel several times and as Chair of the Transportation Committee, chaired meetings at which it is discussed. The town attorney maintains that until local consent is granted, the County does not have it. According to counsel, the County must get permit approvals from the state and federal governments and then come ask the town for local consent. In his opinion, there is no need for a resolution opposing something the County does not yet have but must come ask the Town to grant.
Curt Thomas: I support the intent of the resolution in holding the County accountable and protecting the interests of Mount Pleasant residents. However, I believe our leadership should have been working more collaboratively with the County from the beginning. For nearly five years, there have been opportunities for dialogue and compromise that were not fully utilized. Now we find ourselves at a critical moment where withdrawing consent could delay the project further and potentially redirect the 60 million dollars in funding to another part of the county.
If elected, I would support keeping the resolution as a tool for negotiation but would not rush to withdraw consent. We should first exhaust every opportunity to work with Charleston County, SCDOT, and community leaders to refine the design and reach a fair, balanced solution.
As a former state trooper, I am acutely aware of how vital Highway 41 is to hurricane evacuation and public safety. Losing this funding or delaying this project due to slow action could put our community at risk when it matters most.
Alex Crosby: No, I do not and I would not withdraw municipal consent. The town of Mount Pleasant must be an active participant in the project.
Jenny DeSart: Yes, I support this resolution. Last night, I had a forum in which I expressed that I would not withdraw municipal consent as I was under the impression that they did not need consent because the SCDOT would not be doing the work. I believed if they would do it anyways, then we should not fracture our relationship any more than it already is.
Fortunately, thankfully, after this forum, I was able to have a discussion with people who are more educated in these areas and with citizens who are more involved in this area and realized that we can withdraw municipal consent and it WOULD make a difference, so yes, I would withdraw municipal consent. I do think it is important to communicate with Charleston County and make sure they understand our view point as well as keep a cordial working relationship with them as we will have to work together on so many things. My answer is a yes, I would withdraw municipal consent. Thank you for asking this question at the forum and allowing me to do some research and learn more about this area as I have not been asked this specific question before.
Brianna Harmon: I do support the resolution to oppose the expansion project. I would like to see the county do a re-design of the road to compromise and thus would support a measure to withdraw municipal consent if the plan is not in the best interest of Mount Pleasant residents.
John Iacofano: Yes — Daniel Brownstein and I asked for the item to be put on Town Council along with Jake Rambo’s support. I support the Town Council’s resolution opposing the current Highway 41 expansion plan, and I would support withdrawing municipal consent if necessary.
Withdrawal of consent isn’t about delay — it’s about demanding a fair, transparent process that puts residents first. The County must collaborate with the Town and community stakeholders to find a plan that addresses congestion while preserving Mount Pleasant’s neighborhoods, heritage, and green spaces. Mount Pleasant Town Council members defend Highway 41 vote (https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/commentary/mount-pleasant-phillips-community-highway-41/article_c207c24d-3cc8-4699-a790-b2b6e8391024.html) .
If re-elected, I will champion withdrawing municipal consent from the Town of Mount Pleasant.
Many politicians will jump on this “hot topic” for votes — I’m one who will actually do
something about it.
Perry Rourke: I fully support Town Council’s resolution and attended the Charleston County Council meeting to show my support. If elected, I would also support a measure by Council to withdraw municipal consent.
Craig Russack: I do not have this resolution and can’t speak on whether I would or would not support it but I do not support giving up municipal consent to any outside entity. What happens in our Town should be controlled by our local government which should make decisions based on the will of the people who live here.
Gary Santos: [No responses received]
Mike Tinkey: Yes, I voted for the resolution. Yes.
Kathryn Whitaker: We need to be governing collaboratively, not combatively. I do not support withdrawing municipal consent. While I share the community’s concerns about the current proposal, pulling consent would have serious consequences for Mount Pleasant’s working relationship with Charleston County and could jeopardize other important infrastructure projects. It would be like throwing a grenade into that partnership, and that’s not how we should govern. Instead, we need to repair and strengthen our relationships with County officials and staff so we can work together toward a more balanced, transparent, and effective solution for Highway 41 and the region as a whole.
5) The current “Road to Compromise” design was presented to County Council and voted on without any of the same level of public involvement, comment periods, or years of study and analysis the design team used to ultimately refine the original list of 12 alternatives down to the initially preferred Alternative 1 proposal for Highway 41 expansion.
While several other viable new alternatives were proposed by the community to the design team at stakeholder meetings that occurred in the abbreviated outreach period in the wake of the announcement of the “Road to Compromise” proposal, they were summarily rejected by the design team before they could be seriously studied. Would you support the County withdrawing the “Road to Compromise” proposal that is currently under review by the Army Corps of Engineers to allow such new proposals to be considered and to ensure that any newly proposed solutions go through the same rigorous public vetting process as the original 12 alternatives before any new application is submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers?
Will Haynie: I have had two face to face meetings with the Chairman of County Council recently advocating exactly that. The 4-3-4 design is workable and respectful of Phillips Community and would be every bit as effective without the Southern Parkway spur through the park. I took part in all of the stakeholder meetings prior to the County selecting Alternative 1, five lanes through Phillips, which they subsequently withdrew. I can personally vouch for the lack of transparency and public input as compared to the very long process that led up to Alternative 1 first becoming the preferred alternative.
Curt Thomas: Yes, I would support withdrawing or pausing the “Road to Compromise” proposal to ensure that all community-proposed alternatives are given fair and equal consideration. Every alternative should undergo the same level of technical study, environmental review, and public input that the original 12 options received.
A good process is essential for community trust. If residents feel excluded or ignored, the project will remain controversial no matter the outcome. I would support reopening the dialogue with County and state partners to refine or introduce new alternatives that better reflect the community’s input, safety needs, and smart growth principles.
Summary and Core Principles
As a mayoral candidate, I believe in smart growth, transparency, and collaboration. Our community deserves responsible planning that balances progress with preservation. I will work to:
* Promote smart growth that prioritizes multi-modal, environmentally conscious solutions.
* Ensure that residents of Park West, Dunes West, Phillips, and surrounding areas are active participants in shaping transportation projects.
* Protect our parks, wetlands, and neighborhoods from unnecessary disruption.
* Strengthen collaboration with Charleston County, SCDOT, and the Army Corps of Engineers so that Mount Pleasant has a proactive, not reactive, role in regional planning.
* Safeguard our hurricane evacuation routes and public safety by keeping critical transportation funding in Mount Pleasant.
Mount Pleasant’s growth must be strategic, smart, and safe. That starts with open communication, early collaboration, and leadership that acts before opportunities are lost.
Alex Crosby: Yes, I would support new proposals to be considered and vetted.
Jenny DeSart: Yes, I would support the County withdrawing the “Road to Compromise” proposal that is currently being reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers to allow new proposals to be considered. I think a viable alternative that shows purpose and intent needs to be presented to avoid this one from happening. The most important input in these decisions should be from the residents who live around it, so they should be involved in the process and that is what my problem with this entire situation is. Citizen involvement should be the priority here.
Brianna Harmon: I would definitely support the county withdrawing the “Road to Compromise” proposal as residents made it very clear that this is not what we want or need. I would support new proposals being considered and studied by multiple agencies and firms. Especially since the cost just increased by $100 million dollars. We had funded this project via an increased sales tax to the county almost a decade ago and we are still no closer to a resolution. It is time for the county and town to work together and take action on this issue before it goes up another 100 million.
John Iacofano: Yes — I would support withdrawing the current “Road to Compromise” proposal so that new and better solutions can be properly evaluated through a fair and transparent process.
However, I want to be clear — I don’t want to lose the funding that has already been secured for this project. We can and should move quickly and collaboratively toward a revised solution that balances mobility, safety, and community preservation. I believe as council we should hold a workshop and invite County Council and stakeholders to attend for open discussion and to work toward an expedited solution.
Mount Pleasant residents deserve to be part of a true public process, but that doesn’t mean starting over from scratch. I believe we can refine a solution that includes improvements to Bessemer Road, intersection upgrades at 17 and 41, and the 4-3-4 configuration — all within a reasonable timeline that keeps us eligible for funding.
We can protect our neighborhoods, honor community input, and still deliver meaningful traffic relief without unnecessary delay. I will champion for the Agenda item in November to deny municipal consent from the Town of Mt Pleasant. Many politicians will jump on this “hot topic” item that gets votes, I’m one that will do something about it!
Perry Rourke: I fully support withdrawing the “Road to Compromise” proposal and conducting a full public vetting process for all viable alternatives.
Craig Russack: If I were to be elected I would prefer any plans with the scope of this project to be given plenty of time to be studied and understood by all parties involved prior to any vote. I ensure you, the people will have a say in what is being built in their backyards.
Gary Santos: [No responses received]
Mike Tinkey: Yes, recognizing the Hwy 41 project is a Charleston County funded project on a SC State Road requiring Federal approval and the Town’s leverage is limited.
The most recent 41 update from the County at the Transportation Committee states they are moving forward with their preferred alternative.
The town has continued to make improvements to finish road projects, add more infrastructure to enhance safety and ease congestion, and negotiate to ease congestion and improve safety on 41, including but not limited to the following, a number of which I voted for and worked on while on the Planning Commission and now on Town Council:
* RiverTowne and 41
* Town acquisition of the Republic Tract to reduce the planned development which has the potential of over 1,600 homes, septic tanks near the Wando River,41 and connecting roads.
* The building of the Roundabout at Stockdale in Park West has been expedited with temporary traffic signals while under construction
* Tupelo Development on Hwy 17 adding another access road and mitigating the impact of commercial development on the adjoining homeowners
* All American Boulevard and expansion of Billy Swails Bpulevard.
* Vauhn Kee Parkway
* Studying where to add and stage a Rapid Response Vehicle with EMS staff and capability to handle injuries and move vehicles to clear traffic backups
* Ongoing calibration and synchronization of traffic signals.
* Adding turn lanes as indicated through traffic studies.
* Expanding public transit.
* Comprehensive Plan focus of smart and green redevelopment of areas like Mt Pleasant Town Centre for live, work, shop, and play in walkable and bikeable neighborhoods to reduce car traffic
* Expansion of Mt. Pleasant Way
* Expansion of neighborhood recreation options like Carolina Park Recreation Complex, Park West Pool renovation, the baseball field at Cario, the Rifle Range Recreation Complex, and more to keep traffic off 41 and 17.
* Working with Berkeley County to reduce the impacts of their residential, commercial, and industrial development.
Thank you again for allowing me to participate in answering your questions. I am a 42-year-old resident, husband, father, and grandfather, small business owner, community leader, and Town Council member who works daily to keep our town unique and livable for all residents. I will protect Mt. Pleasant’s unique identity while merging preservation with progress to ensure our town remains an exceptional place to live,
Together, we can shape a stronger, greener, and more connected community in Mt. Pleasant
Kathryn Whitaker: Yes. The public deserves the same level of transparency, analysis, and participation that the original alternatives received.
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences (*|UPDATE_PROFILE|*) or unsubscribe (*|UNSUB|*)