Out Highway 378, past the congestion, traffic, and neon, just before the Trotter Road intersection, sits a small lake on the right side of the road, adjacent to the driving range. Old Garner’s Ferry Road and Garners Ferry Road divide at that point and form an easy to define border for a piece of property that has been in the news for a couple of years.

As this is being written, Richland County officials are finalizing plans to purchase the small lake and surrounding grounds, around 44 acres, give or take a dam or two, for over a million dollars. Supporters see a pastoral setting for family gatherings and an inducement for visitors to the county. Opponents see the acquisition as a waste of taxpayer money and a future financial and personal liability.

In March of 2010, Councilman Norman Jackson, accompanied by Virginia Sanders and Jim Wilson of the Richland County Conservation Commission walked the property and discussed the possibility of a purchase by Richland County. A proposal was introduced into the A&F committee, and an ordinance eventually came before the full council.

In June of that same year, the council authorized administrative staff members to find a creative way to purchase the property and in late June earmarked $1.5 million from the Hospitality Tax budget to purchase the property.

During the October 4, 2011, council meeting, the Richland County Council finally approved the contract to purchase the Caughman property. At the next council meeting, this same council authorized the administrative staff, at the suggestion of County Administrator Milton Pope, to perform a feasibility study on the property before finalizing the contract. This proposal was approved despite the protests of council member Jackson, who opined that certain members of the council were dragging their feet and “fought against anything that was specific to the Lower Richland area.”

Jackson also accused Pope of intentionally delaying the process. Pope said he had neither the power nor inclination to delay any county ordinance but felt it was his responsibility to “do due diligence on any endeavor by the county involving taxpayer funds.”

A topographical survey of the century old dam at the site revealed possible problems. Currently, the dam does not meet DHEC specifications and could fail during a substantial rainstorm. A $1.8 million price tag to repair the dam brought new negotiations and a request by the council to complete the sale without including the dam. That contract is under negotiation and will become final soon. At that point, Richland County will own the Caughman Road property, except for the dam.

Although the purchase is imminent, questions remain. In a recent letter to local political blogger Joe Azar, Jackson defended the purchase and once again accused those opposed to the project of trying to delay or derail the purchase.

In the letter to Azar, Jackson compares the Caughman purchase to the recreation complex in the Northeast corner of the county being built to host softball and soccer tournaments. Richland County has spent considerably more money on the purchase of that land and will spend much more to finalize the project.

But the county has spent considerable time and money determining that a recreational complex will bring funds to the coffers of the county. Tournaments should also bring out of town guests who will spend money on hotels and restaurants. No such study has been done for the Caughman property, and tourist dollars seem unlikely.

Jackson made a more apt comparison when he mentioned Richland County’s historic houses and how much the county spends on those. Once the county determines a home is of historic value and makes a purchase, that home becomes the responsibility of Richland County.

The same will be true of the Caughman property. Regardless of the eventual determined usage of the pond and surrounding area, Richland County will be required to maintain the lake, surrounding grounds, and buildings. Even though the latest version of the contract doesn’t include the dam, anything that is detrimental to the dam and results in the partial or complete draining of the lake will ultimately be the responsibility of Richland County.

Both the Recreation Commission and the Conservation Commission have backed off initial plans to help purchase and maintain this new park. A proposed historical assessment has never been done. Questions remain. But the property is now or will soon be the property of Richland County. At some point in the near future, someone will have to decide what happens next.