Carnival Cruise Lines in June was the target of a lawsuit that claims the line's Fantasy is operating illegally in the port of Charleston, S.C. The ship is homeported there year-round. Four citizen groups represented by Southern Environmental Law Center charged that the ship violates local zoning and environmental rules. The line, along with the city of Charleston and the South Carolina Ports Authority, on Aug. 22 responded to the complaint by asking the state Supreme Court to dismiss the lawsuit. Cruise editor Donna Tunney spoke with Blan Holman, attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, about the case.
Q: It appears your clients are trying to get Carnival to leave Charleston. Why?
A: This case is not about stopping cruise operations or any other maritime business. It was not brought against South Carolina Ports Authority or the city of Charleston; it was brought against Carnival Cruise Lines to get that operation to abide by local standards. The city of Charleston could change those local ordinances whenever it likes.
Q: The petition by Carnival, the city and the ports authority implies that if the suit is successful, it would have far-reaching effects on other maritime businesses, such as cargo operations. Is that true?
A: The lawsuit was filed against Carnival only, and the allegations in the complaint refer to Carnival only. The relief sought is only from Carnival. ...We don't believe this is a threat to other operations, and if anyone really thought it was, the city could amend its ordinances tomorrow.
Q: The city and the ports authority often cite figures from a financial report that says the Carnival Fantasy is responsible for an annual economic impact to the region of $37 million. Why would your clients turn away from that kind of money?
A: We don't agree with that study, and it doesn't take into account the economic cost of traffic congestion and the concerns of other businesses in Charleston. ... No one wants to see Carnival go away. We just want to keep them in balance with other businesses.
Q: Some people in the Charleston area say that the lawsuit's goal is really to derail the planned redevelopment of the Union Pier terminal. Is it?
A: No. Frankly, I don't understand that. The Union Pier terminal is a decrepit area that needs to be redeveloped. The lawsuit alleges that Carnival is violating local ordinances. The remedy is to come into compliance, and there are a number of ways that could happen. For example, there's an accommodations overlay requirement, and the cruise ship is essentially a floating hotel -- actually, it's much bigger than any hotel in Charleston. And there are rules that come with an accommodations overlay, such as for parking. If the court agrees with us, they'd have to get an overlay. ... In Carnival's case, they could probably show that most [passengers] take the shuttle from the parking lot to the ship. But the city would have oversight, and there are issues with cruise ship traffic that the city should be dealing with.
Q: With regard to the environmental issues, the petition notes that other ships discharge wastewater, as the Fantasy does. Why target only one ship?
A: I can't get into the merits of that claim. We disagree with their entire characterization of the environmental claim.
Q: Why was the lawsuit filed against the cruise line rather than the ports authority?
A: The Carnival operation is the one directly causing the injuries to the plaintiffs. They are the cause, and we thought they were the proper defendant.
Q: Were you surprised by the petition asking the state Supreme Court to intervene?
A: It wasn't a complete surprise. We're going to oppose the petition. We'll file a response to it in early September.