Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Displacement Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee seeks funding clarity, broader faith‑based partnership before approving displacement plan
Summary
The town staff’s draft displacement mitigation support plan was described as a ‘good start’ but committee members and public commenters pressed for clearer funding commitments and a faith‑based coalition rather than a single church lead; the committee asked staff to revise the plan and return in August.
Town staff presented a draft displacement mitigation support plan to the Housing Action Committee on July 16, describing it as a community‑led response developed through stakeholder workshops and recommending committee review and a recommendation to town council.
Quincy said the plan would deploy a community response team during displacement events, coordinate lead partners and improve early notification so agencies could mobilize quickly. “It is our recommendation, that the housing action committee review of the proposed displacement mitigation support plan, and recommend adoption to Town Council,” Quincy told the group.
Committee members repeatedly pressed staff to clarify who would provide money and what the town’s role would be. Stuart noted the town’s sizeable budget and asked why the plan relies largely on outside donations and nonprofit partners. “We have a 160 odd million dollar budget… We have done nothing towards social services aspect of this,” he said, arguing the town should commit funds rather than rely solely on charity.
Quincy said the displacement plan anticipates private funding and the Community Foundation of the Lowcountry would steward a displacement fund, but added the town would add value by acting as convener and providing early information to lead partners. “...the communication that the town is providing to the community partners is something that is unique to this plan,” Quincy said.
Several public commenters urged a broader faith‑based coalition rather than naming a single church as the lead. A pastor who said he volunteered to support the effort warned he could not single‑handedly carry the obligation for his congregation. “I don’t think I can bring my congregation in… I don’t feel comfortable saying that Christ Lutheran Church is it,” he said.
Heather Rath of the local Economic Opportunity Commission encouraged the town and committee to use federal programs and previously successful responses to large‑scale displacement as models. Committee members also pressed for clarity on how short‑term, immediate needs (hotels, shelter) would transition to longer‑term housing solutions.
Outcome: The committee did not vote to adopt the plan. Members split between approving a corrected draft to keep momentum and insisting on more work to fix holes (particularly partner signatories and funding). The group agreed to return the draft to staff and the displacement work group for revisions, with a goal of revisiting the plan in August.
Why this matters: A structured displacement response shapes how quickly residents can be rehoused after redevelopment or a major displacement event; disagreement about funding and lead partners affects whether the plan will be operationally ready on short notice.
Next steps: Staff said the plan and any MOU language will be revised to reflect committee feedback, clarify the faith‑based coalition concept, and provide detail on funding sources and partner commitments before the plan returns to the committee and then to council.
