Joint port proposal so much easier said than done

Friday, 30 March 2007

Page 1 of 3 By Dan McCue Scant weeks after the governors of South Carolina and Georgia met on the site of a proposed cargo container terminal in Jasper County to heal old wounds and agree to work together to make the facility a reality, this much can be said: There are still many tripping points to overcome before Gov. Mark Sanford’s and Gov. Sonny Perdue’s good intentions come anywhere close to creating the multimillion dollar facility, and a bi-state authority to run it. Not only does their gentleman’s agreement, which was sealed with signatures and the swapping of ties before nearly 100 onlookers and a phalanx of television cameras, set a fast-track timeline for the creation of an all-new and unique port authority to operate the terminal outside the bounds of the S.C. State Ports Authority and Georgia Ports Authority, it also exposes whatever plan comes forward to the uncertainty of not one but two levels of legislative process. “At this point, I don’t think that there’s anyone, at least on this side of the Savannah River, that’s not excited about this proposal and the promise that it holds for the region and for all of our futures,” said Bert Brantley, Perdue’s spokesman. “At the same time, everybody’s anxious to see the details. We all want to see how all the unanswered questions come out.” Appointing a task force If what’s alternately being described as a “joint” or “cooperative” ports authority comes to pass, it would be only the second such entity in the United States, after the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. In a written statement and subsequent public statements announcing the deal to drop litigation between the two states related to the proposed terminal, and the governors’ intention to forge ahead together, both men assert the new authority will function much like the one 640 miles to their north. For now, the most immediate concern of both state administrations is creating the bi-state task force that will wrestle with the intricacies of creating a ports authority and ultimately a port. The term sheet for the agreement states that each governor will appoint three members to a task force, co-chaired by one representative from each state, to form the bi-state compact that will create a bi-county ports authority and a framework for the terminal development to follow. Aides to both governors said appointments to the task force would be announced “sooner, rather than later.” Once appointed, the body will have just 180 days to create a compact and deliver it to the governors, who then will send it on to their respective legislatures for ratification by March 31, 2008. Somewhere in that initial 180 days, the bi-state compact task force is also directed to make drafts of their plan available to “state officers, stakeholders and the public” for comment and revision prior to introduction in the legislatures. Then, assuming the process transpires as planned and the compact is adopted by the legislatures, the deal will be sent on to the U.S. Congress, presumably as a joint resolution sponsored by both state’s congressional delegations, for review and ratification as required by a clause in the U.S. Constitution that permits compacts between states only with congressional consent. Joel Sawyer, a spokesman for Sanford, said the governor has immersed himself in the process of coming up with three task force members for the state, looking at people who have a background in the port industry as well as others who might lend a helpful outside perspective to the committee. “The governor takes these kinds of appointments very seriously,” Sawyer said. “Obviously, with everything that has to get done, we’re on a tight schedule to get these appointments done, but at this point, I’d hate to give a date for them in case something unforeseen should arise.” << Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>