Letter to the editor: Do those who benefit from hunting lodge have same concerns as everyday citizens?

For over a month I have mulled over, chewed on, meditated on and contemplated my response to Tony Bartelme's Oct. 30, 2024, Post and Courier's article "Sumter bought land to preserve Shaw Air Force Base, then built a hunting hideaway for officials." Such an excellent and informative article. Guessing that I should be celebrating the structures of a hunting lodge, caretaker home and storage unit along with its multitude of amenities of which include two stuffed bears overlooking and guarding its event participants, along with a beautifully constructed cypress tree table to name a few. It's said that multi-millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on this elaborate facility and that its investment served two functions for the Sumter community: retention and economic growth.

With the unpredictability of military base retentions of the past few years, I understand the need to nurture "retention" for both the Air Force and Army facilities on Shaw Air Force Base. Also, with such seesawing economic reality, to commit to Sumter's economic growth is a no-brainer. However, I cannot seem to reason a multi-million-dollar GATED complex with a keypad entry and security camera, as well as selective signage that seems to discriminate against the majority of Sumter's population in order to keep more residents out than in.

Is this project representative of "trickle-down" economics? If so, how much capital has Sumter gained from both the retention and economic growth partnerships that this facility is meant to develop and nurture? And if there is capital gain, what percentage of its gain is distributed within the greater Sumter communities? For a number of months, I had attended city and county council meetings. I heard the same concerns over and over again: for example, housing, roads, drainage, education, food deserts, crime, over-incarceration and the behavior of drivers through neighborhoods. How are these issues, and others that citizens bring to our local government leaders, addressed? This list can easily be lengthened.

Where on the list of priorities are the community-based needs of everyday citizens? Local elections are over, and new governing individuals will be put in place soon. How will this leadership challenge themselves to apply alternate methods in addressing community needs? Will they even accept and embrace the challenge?

It would be extremely disappointing to accept that millions of dollars can easily be spent in areas of concern where concern is not critical. Do the individuals who benefit from this remote luxury have any of the concerns mentioned above? What seems on the minds of beneficiaries of the hunting lodge is, "I wonder what the dove and deer population is - and do we need a couple of more stuffed bears?"

MICHELLE ROSS

Sumter