Overview
Several years ago, Charleston became a home port for Carnival Cruise Lines. As a result, the number of cruise ships and passengers has increased exponentially, creating significant impacts throughout the National Historic Landmark district. Though the City of Charleston and the Ports Authority voluntarily agreed in 2010 to cap the number of visits by ships, the agreement is not legally binding. Citing the potential threat that uncontrolled tourism poses to the city’s fragile infrastructure and historic character, the National Trust placed Charleston on “watch status” when its list of America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places was announced in 2011.
National Significance
Charleston has long been recognized as one of the most beautiful cities in the nation, with a distinguished record of outstanding historic preservation and tourism management. The National Trust believes that sponsoring a cruise tourism impact study, providing a legal review of enforcement authority on cruise tourism, and participating in community dialogue will help Charlestonians develop tools to protect their city’s rich cultural heritage. The lessons learned in Charleston can also help other communities address challenges associated with growing cruise tourism.
Campaign Goals
- Define enforceable limits on the size, number, and frequency of cruise ships visiting the city’s piers.
Ways To Help
Tell us why Charleston matters to you.
Written by John Hildreth, Project Manager
Part of our work in addressing Cruise Tourism impacts in Charleston is providing opportunity for dialogue. We have an interesting piece of dialogue for you today.
About the time our symposium "Harboring Tourism" on cruise tourism and historic port communities was winding up, the Carnival Cruise ship Triumph was suffering through its well publicized disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Since that time Carnival has not received a lot of good news . . . or press. The Charleston Post and Courier ran the following editorial recently that not only cataloged Carnival's woes, but made a rather humorous conclusion. While our efforts to help enact regulations to help communities get the right scale for cruise tourism are not directed at Carnival, per se, we thought you might enjoy the following:
Carnival's Choppy Seas
Posted: Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:01 a.m.
It just keeps getting worse for Carnival Cruise Lines.
The month after the nightmare cruise of the Triumph, adrift for five days while 3,000 passengers were subjected to rotting food, no working toilets and no air conditioning, there was more bad news.
Carnival’s Dream was stranded in Saint Maarten after an emergency generator failed, overflowing toilets and causing power outages. More than 4,000 passengers were flown back to Florida.
The same week Carnival’s Elation had to be escorted by a tugboat back to New Orleans because of problems with its steering.
And Carnival’s Legend cut short the cruise for more than 2,000 passengers when it experienced technical issues with its propulsion system.
But the embarrassment, financial losses and headaches didn’t end there for the corporation whose Fantasy cruise ship is based in Charleston.
This week Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., sent Carnival a bill for $4 million to cover Coast Guard and Navy bailouts of the Splendor in 2010 and the Triumph last month. The bill came with a chiding letter from him in his capacity as chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation:
“In just the past five years I am aware of 90 serious events that have occurred on your cruise ships.”
Now Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wants the travel industry to create a standard passenger bill of rights so cruise passengers know what is expected — and what forms of redress are available — when things go wrong.
And as if to forestall the government from imposing standards on the ships’ mechanical capabilities, Carnival has canceled Triumph’s next 10 cruises while improvements are made to its inadequate fire prevention and backup systems.
That isn’t the end.
Carnival’s image has suffered. It has even been added to the list of contestants in the Consumerist Worst Companies in America Tournament.
Last year video game giant Electronic Arts took home the Golden Poo trophy and Bank of America was second for the Silver Poo. This year, some think Carnival stands a good chance of “winning” in its first time around.
The tournament is structured like the NCAA basketball tournament, and in the first bracket Carnival is up against United Airlines with winners determined by online voting.
Oh, one more thing: Advance bookings for 2013 are behind the same point a year earlier.
Maybe Charleston residents and those historic preservation organizations concerned because no limits have been imposed on the number or size of cruise ships coming to Charleston won’t have to worry so much after all. (Photo by Gerald Herbert)
So, that is our dialogue for today. Please check back often for additional updates on Charleston. Also, donate today to support the National Trust's ongoing work at this National Treasure.
Written by Will Cook, Associate General Counsel, NTHP
Litigation is often the last option in the fight to protect historic places, but in the relatively new and developing field of historic preservation law, legal precedent is not always available. That's why the National Trust's legal team works hard at finding ways to help develop that precedent.
In Charleston, S.C., unregulated and supersized cruise ship tourism provides an opportunity to use the legal theory of “nuisance†to protect historic properties and districts from unreasonable harm caused by cruise tourism, which operates in the absence of any meaningful regulation. Nuisance, one of the oldest causes of action in the law, is designed to protect property owners from unreasonable interference with their right of "quiet enjoyment."
The National Trust's legal advocacy efforts on behalf of preservation interests in Charleston cleared an important hurdle last week after Special Referee Clifton B. Newman, a judge appointed by the South Carolina Supreme Court to consider dismissal motions, recommended in a 27-page "Report and Recommendation that nuisance claims filed against Carnival Cruise Lines be allowed to proceed. The National Trust had strongly supported the use of nuisance claims before the court in its amicus briefs. Judge Newman also supported the ability of historic property owners to sue in order to protect the historic integrity of neighborhoods and buildings that they labor diligently to protect and preserve."
Judge Newman's recommendation to allow the plaintiffs' nuisance claims is especially significant because he simultaneously recommended dismissal of their zoning and environmental claims, which would have left the property owners empty handed, had it not been for the nuisance claims. The judge's recommendation that the cruise ships should not be subject to the protections of the zoning ordinance (such as height limits and view corridor protections) was based primarily on his opinion that the cruise ships should not be considered "structures."
The National Trust has also supported ongoing litigation in federal court challenging the Army Corps of Engineers' lack of compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and in the ongoing dispute over state permitting for a proposed new cruise ship terminal.
Although the South Carolina Supreme Court must now decide whether to accept or reject Judge Newman's Report, his recommendation to allow nuisance claims to proceed marks a significant milestone in the ongoing litigation over the harmful effects of large cruise ships on nearby historic properties, on Charleston's internationally recognized skyline, and on nationally designated historic districts. It also represents the potential for positive outcomes when the National Trust is able to work collaboratively with local partners and other advocacy groups to help shape litigation strategy.
The National Trust's legal team will continue to support the nuisance claims against Carnival Cruise Lines as the litigation progresses.
Please check back often for additional updates on Charleston. Also, donate today to support the National Trust's ongoing work at this National Treasure.
Written by John Hildreth, Project Manager
The following is an opinion piece that appeared in the Charleston Post and Courier on November 9, 2012. It was written by Carrie Agnew, Executive Director of Charleston Communities for Cruise Control. She raises valid questions concerning issues addressed by our Charleston National Treasure work.
How many? How big?
BY CARRIE AGNEW
How many is too many? How big is too big? And at what cost does it all come?
Charleston Communities for Cruise Control (C4) has repeatedly raised issues of number, size and environmental impact with respect to cruise ships on its website, at public hearings, in letters to Carnival and on billboards along I-26.
Our current billboard poses the question “How many is too many?” One alarming statistic, recently precisely calculated (and vetted by the Environmental Protection Association), is that the Carnival Fantasy idling a single engine while at Union Pier for 10 hours spews sulfur dioxide emissions equivalent to over 34,000 idling tractor-trailers for the same amount of time. And that is after 2015, when the new cleaner fuel standards are fully in place. It should be noted that Carnival and its trade association have been lobbying hard to eliminate this improvement.
We recall initial assurances that cruise ship visits would be about two per week, which then became an average of two per week, then no more than 104 per year. We have seen those visits concentrated in the already active and crowded months of October and April, with up to four per week. We remain concerned that the dock length and parking planned for the new cruise terminal at Union Pier could accommodate more and bigger ships. Why else construct a terminal that can handle far greater activity?
With respect to the proposed cruise ship terminal at Union Pier, we were disappointed that our State Ports Authority obtained a necessary permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, sidestepping reviews of impacts on historic sites and the environment as required by the National Historic Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act. The SPA was able to do so by characterizing the $35 million rebuild of a dilapidated shed into a new cruise ship terminal as a “maintenance” project. C4 is heartened by the challenge to this permit now pending in federal court and looks forward to participating in an appropriate future review process.
Likewise, it is curious that the SPA has never addressed several questions posed by the state’s Office of Coastal and Ocean Resource Management in connection with its piling permit application. Specifically, what other potential terminal sites were studied? What are the potential impacts on adjacent neighborhood property values? Where is their “proof of coordination” with the State Historic Preservation office? A permit should not be considered without these questions being answered.
Other billboards could pose the question “How big is too big?” The new generation of cruise ships has 13 to 15 decks and carries 5,000 passengers and crew.
We might also ask “Is there a better terminal location?” A cruise ship terminal at Union Pier is in the heart of historic districts and residential neighborhoods. Other locations would provide more distance from residents and easier access to ship passengers and provision trucks. Other cities, notably Boston and Hamilton, Bermuda, have located new terminals farther from historic areas. Venice, Italy, is suffering greatly from having cruise ships dock in the midst of its historic sites.
We are glad to read of the port’s recent reports of favorable developments with respect to cargo business. C4 is pro-port, pro-business and pro-tourism, as well as pro-quality of life and for perpetuating the very characteristics of Charleston that keeps tourists coming. The balance between the two aspects of life and work in Charleston has been carefully managed in the past with great success, resulting in Charleston recently being voted “Best Tourist Destination in the World.” After so much work by so many, it would be sad to put that designation at risk by allowing the cruise industry to grow unregulated here.
We join with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, World Monuments Fund, Charleston Preservation Society, Historic Charleston Foundation, Historic Ansonborough Neighborhood Association, Wagener Terrace Neighborhood Association, Charlestown Neighborhood Association, Committee to Save the City, Coastal Conservation League, The Post and Courier, Charleston Mercury and local real estate and hospitality professionals in calling for a reasonable, enforceable regime addressing number, size, frequency and emissions of cruise ships calling in Charleston.
Please check back often for additional updates on Charleston. Also, donate today to support the National Trust's ongoing work at this National Treasure.
Written by John Hildreth, Project Manager
As part of our ongoing work to develop a sensible policy for cruise tourism in Charleston, the National Trust is participating in the regulatory review process for the new terminal that is being constructed. There has been both hopeful and disappointing news on this front.
The root of the issue is just how broadly the reviewing agencies at the state and federal level will consider impacts from the project. The Army Corps of Engineers is taking the most narrow view. The South Carolina Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management is considering expanding their review for their permitting process. Below is information from Charleston’s Coastal Conservation League on an opportunity to request a new hearing to consider these wider impacts. If you are in South Carolina, or care about this issue, please take a minute to add your voice to this effort.
This is a friendly reminder that the deadline to request another hearing on the new cruise terminal is quickly approaching! A few weeks ago, the South Carolina Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management requested more information from the South Carolina State Ports Authority in order to better assess the port’s permit application for the new cruise terminal. The port has revised their permit application to include additional structural changes they want to make to the warehouse, and also to include the construction of the staging areas for passengers, luggage, and supplies.
The South Carolina Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management must disclose and review all of the impacts associated with the new cruise terminal and the operations it will facilitate. The South Carolina Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management is also required to evaluate alternatives to constructing a new cruise terminal at Union Pier.
Please write to the South Carolina Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and request a public hearing regarding this revised permit application in order to assess the breadth of impacts associated with the new cruise terminal.
Please check back often for additional updates on Charleston. Also, donate today to support the National Trust's ongoing work at this National Treasure.
My favorite cities are Charleston and Venice, Italy. Both have a rich maritime history and a visceral link to the water that surrounds and envelops them. Both struggle with the pressures of tourism. Charleston is home. The view from a sailboat on the harbor has barely changed since Audubon painted Long Billed Curlews in the marsh. In 2009, Venetians staged a mock funeral, declaring Venice dead, killed by tourism. Not Charleston. It will live, balancing tourism and history. La dolce vita!