Yet this audit revealed they had absolutely no justification to support those numbers. The audit council reports about 5,000 jobs in South Carolina are port related. How can we trust this current SPA management to tell us the truth?.
In other words, there is little agreement about what jobs are counted as port related. Even if the figures stated by the Mercer report are accurate the SPA would not be able to generate the cash flow required to finance its new container terminal. According to an SPA business plan and feasibility study, construction of the port alone would cost South Carolina taxpayer's $1.2 billion, and an estimated public investment of $190 million would be needed each year thereafter (SC-More Than A Port). These figures do not include costs of financing additional highways, rail connections, and other public services needed to support such growth. In the words of a local economist: .
It is plain that the long-term costs of the megaport project outweigh the benefits. Since our Charleston port will continue to grow in any case, it makes sense to let the megaport be built at another site that can better accommodate the heavy environmental, social and economic costs. South Carolina's port system is one of the Nation's best and most efficient. We are an attractive place to do business, and will be even more so without this "Global Gateway" (Sparks).
Overall public opposition to the "Global Gateway" has caused the SPA to change course on expansion plans, abandoning the original plan for a mega port. The SPA has shifted their efforts from the "Global Gateway" to a scaled down version of port expansion. A recent bill was introduced by Senator Jim Ritchie, R-Spartanburg, to allow the port to move forward with expansion plans, while addressing related issues, such as traffic congestion. The introduction of Bill 926 by Senator Ritchie begins as follows:.
A JOINT RESOLUTION.
