Dorchester County is growing fast, but growth without planning is not progress.

Right now, too many families are sitting in traffic, schools are overcrowded, rural communities are feeling ignored, and emergency services are being stretched thin. Roads, drainage, water, wastewater, parks, and public safety are not keeping up with the pace of development.

This cannot continue.

My position is simple: Before the county approves more large housing developments, we need to make sure the basics are in place. That means roads that can handle the traffic, schools with enough room, drainage that works, and public services that can keep people safe.

Growth should make life better for the people who live here, not harder.

1. Pause Major New Developments

I support a temporary pause on large new residential developments of more than 100 homes until Dorchester County puts stronger standards in place.

This is not about stopping growth. It is about being responsible.

Right now, development is moving faster than the roads, schools, drainage, emergency services, and basic infrastructure needed to support it. The county needs to take a step back, catch up, and set clear rules before approving more large projects.

Growth should work for residents, not overwhelm them.

2. Set Clear Levels of Service For:

• Roads
• Wastewater
• Stormwater
• Solid waste
• Drinking water
• Parks and recreation
• Fire protection
• Emergency management services
• Law enforcement
• Emergency medical services
• Schools

3. Adopt Concurrency Ordinances

Before the county approves more development, it should be clear that the roads, schools, water, sewer, police, fire, EMS, and other basic services can handle it.

4. Create a New Comprehensive Plan

The 2018 Comprehensive Plan has some good pieces, but it does not match the reality Dorchester County is facing today.

5. Make County Government More Transparent

County business should be done in the open.

6. Strengthen Economic Development Standards

Dorchester County should focus on economic development that actually helps the people who live here, and on projects that strengthen the tax base, create good local jobs, and improve quality of life.

7. Establish the East Edisto Community Development Fund Initiative

I support creating the East Edisto Community Development Fund Initiative to help improve quality of life in rural communities that have been overlooked for too long.

The fund would be supported through private donations and community partnerships. Its focus would be simple: strengthen neighborhoods, protect rural character, and help address needs that county government has too often failed to meet.

8. Require Workforce Housing in New Development

We do not just need more rooftops. We need housing that fits the needs of real people who live and work here. These are the people who teach our children, respond to emergencies, work in local businesses, and keep Dorchester County running.

Dorchester County needs to be very careful about how it handles data centers.

These projects can use a tremendous amount of land, power, water, and infrastructure. They may make sense in some places, but they should not be forced into areas where people live, farm, raise families, and are already dealing with traffic, overcrowded schools, drainage problems, and strained public services.

My position is simple: if a data center wants to come to Dorchester County, it needs to be in the right place, pay its own way, and provide a real benefit to the community.

1.  I do not support rezoning land for data centers in residential areas, near farms, or in places that are clearly not suited for this type of use. Data centers belong in appropriate industrial zones. They should stay there.
2. I do not believe tax incentives meant to attract manufacturing, major employers, or large commercial projects should automatically be handed to data centers. These projects often use a lot of resources while creating relatively few long-term local jobs. Any incentive should come with a clear public benefit for Dorchester County residents.
3. If county-owned land is being sold for a data center, it should be sold at fair market value. Public land belongs to the public. Taxpayers should not subsidize private development through discounted land deals.
4. Nuisance and environmental protections need to be required upfront. That means real standards for noise, not just basic decibel readings. It also means clear rules for water use, discharge, temperature, composition, drainage, backup power, and impacts on nearby homes, farms, schools, and public spaces.
5. All infrastructure needed for a data center should be paid for by the developer. That includes power, roads, water, sewer, stormwater, and any added burden on emergency services. Residents should not be left paying the bill for infrastructure that mainly serves a private project.
6. Any new data center approved in Dorchester County should be required, where legally allowed, to make a one-time contribution to the East Edisto Community Development Fund Initiative or another appropriate community benefit fund.

Dorchester County should welcome responsible economic development. But responsible means protecting residents first.

Data centers should stay in the right zones, pay their own costs, follow strong standards, and prove that they are bringing real value to the people who live here.

Having volunteered with various animal rescues for the last 16 years, I have personally witnessed the challenges and joy that comes with it.  Working to strengthen the County’s relationship with Dorchester Paws and our ordinances is something I look to accomplish during my time on County Council.

Dorchester County’s animal control ordinance already establishes baseline protections: it prohibits cruelty and neglect, requires humane treatment during seizure, regulates tethering hardware, and bans retail sale of dogs and cats through pet stores. But the ordinance is strongest on paper and weakest in the mechanics that actually stop abuse before it escalates — reporting, coordinated response, cost recovery, and follow-through with repeat offenders.

Where the current ordinance succeeds:

• Core cruelty and neglect protections. Section 4-8 prohibits withholding food, water, shelter, and necessary veterinary care, and separately bans animal fighting, poisoning, and unsafe tethering equipment.
• A pet-store sale ban. Section 4-22 already prohibits retail sale of dogs and cats in unincorporated Dorchester County — a meaningfully progressive provision that guards against puppy-mill pipelines.
• A structured impoundment and quarantine process. Sections 4-10 and 4-16 set minimum hold periods and require humane treatment by anyone — officer or private citizen — who takes custody of an animal.

Preston’s Proposal for reforms within County authority:

1. Mandatory Cross-Agency Reporting

Current gap:  South Carolina has no state law requiring veterinarians or social workers to report suspected animal cruelty, and Chapter 4 does not fill that gap locally. Research consistently links animal abuse to domestic violence and child abuse, meaning cases are likely going undetected across agency lines.

Proposed reform:  Require Animal Control to share information on suspected-abuse cases with DSS and law enforcement and vice versa, and add explicit good-faith immunity for private citizens who report suspected cruelty.

2. Real Tethering & Outdoor-Care Standards

Current gap:  Section 4-8(6) regulates tether hardware (no choke collars, no oversized chains) but sets no limit on how long an animal may be continuously chained, and no specific temperature thresholds requiring shade or shelter.

Proposed reform:  Cap continuous unattended tethering at a set number of hours and require accessible shade/insulated shelter above and below defined temperature thresholds, closing the gap left by the current general “neglect” language.

3. Cost-of-Care Bond for Active Cruelty Cases

Current gap:  Animals impounded during an active prosecution are held at Dorchester Paws’ expense for the standard hold period, with no mechanism to shift costs to the accused owner or speed up resolution.

Proposed reform:  Adopt a bond-or-forfeit provision so an accused owner can be required to post a cost-of-care bond, and enable an expedited civil forfeiture hearing so animals are not left in shelter limbo for the length of a criminal case.

4. A Dedicated Hoarding Protocol

Current gap:  Hoarding cases are currently handled only as generic neglect or nuisance violations, even though hoarding is a distinct behavioral pattern with high recidivism that resists pure citation-and-fine enforcement.

Proposed reform:  Add a hoarding definition to Section 4-2/4-21 and pair enforcement with a joint animal-control / mental-health response protocol rather than citation alone.

5. Post-Conviction Ownership Limits & Restitution

Current gap:  Nothing in Chapter 4 restricts a convicted abuser from acquiring more animals, and there is no requirement that a convicted owner reimburse the County or shelter for veterinary and impoundment costs. Neither exists under state law either.

Proposed reform:  Bar individuals convicted under Chapter 4 from owning or keeping animals for a defined period, and require restitution covering veterinary and impoundment costs as a standard condition of sentencing under the ordinance

Real Leverage is State Law:

Dorchester’s local fine cap ($500 / 30 days under Section 4-14) is not a policy choice — it reflects the general magistrate-court jurisdictional ceiling under state law, so raising it locally is not realistically available. That matters less than it sounds: South Carolina’s own cruelty statute (S.C. Code § 47-1-40) already carries real penalties for serious cases — up to $1,000 and 90 days for a first offense, up to $2,000 and two years for a second, and a felony tier of 180 days to five years plus a $5,000 fine for torture or aggravated cruelty. The more productive local position is not “raise the fine” but tighter coordination between Animal Control and the Solicitor’s Office so serious cases are routed to state felony prosecution rather than absorbed as low-stakes local citations.

South Carolina ranks 47th in the country — fourth-worst — for animal protection laws overall, per the Animal Legal Defense Fund’s state rankings. County-level reforms can meaningfully offset a weak state baseline, but they work best paired with a public position supporting stronger state action (e.g., mandatory veterinary reporting, which South Carolina still lacks statewide).

Advocating our State representatives to pass Riley’s Act will help to improve that baseline.

The continual funding challenges with DD2 need to be solved.  While the ultimate solution may reside in Columbia, County Council should take a leading role in developing a solution for DD2’s continuous overcrowding situation without negatively impacting the great work in DD4.

While a funding solution is being worked on; we need to tie future development approvals to school capacity.  The county should not be approving new developments where our schools may be forced to turn students away due to capacity constraints.  Even if we cannot adopt a concurrency ordinance, any new development should require student population concerns to be addressed prior to the start of development, not something that is treated as an afterthought.  

Incidents in the high growth areas of the District are increasing with the population.  Renewed traffic studies that account for the future phases of development and shifting traffic patterns are required as are increased patrols from Dorchester County Sheriff’s Office to ensure public safety.