After being known for all things equine, Aiken is widely admired for her trees. The revered South Boundary Oaks have graced the cover of magazines and posters nationwide. Our beautiful parkways, thoughtfully and sustainably designed without the need for irrigation, make you feel at one with nature, even in an urban setting. Downtown itself is nestled around the Hitchcock Woods, the nation’s largest urban forest. The City of Aiken also boasts an Arboretum Trail and the city-owned Hopelands Gardens whose first line on their website reads:
Wrapped behind a serpentine brick wall, under a canopy of ancient oaks, deodar cedars and magnolias, is Hopelands Gardens.
Trees are Aiken’s Crown Jewels, and the city has enjoyed the Tree City title for the past 38 years.
Sadly, recent events including the “accidental” destruction by the City of the Farmer’s Market Parkway trees, and now a city-proposed plan to destroy 68 trees in the historic Smith Hazel Park, have once again put citizens in a battle with the city to save an integral part of what makes Aiken special, her trees.
Despite requests from community leaders, including Bill McGhee, President of the Schofield Community Association, and a vote from the Recreation Commission to recommend pausing this project that would destroy these 68 trees, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh charged ahead, informing the Aiken Standard that the project would move forward. Mr. Bedenbaugh was quoted saying the city “has held several public meetings to discuss the upgrades and tree removal, including a Sept. 11 public hearing,” but, as reported in What Public Hearing that does not appear to be the case at all.
There was a City Council Work Session on Septembr 11, 2023, however, as any city official knows, public comment is not permitted in work sessions. To date, city officials have not responded to email and FOIA requests for evidence that a public hearing ever occurred.
Citizens opposed to the proposed destruction of the trees undertook an online letter writing campaign that, within the first four days, saw over 1000 letters sent to the Mayor, City Council and the City Manager. To put that into perspective, more letters have been sent than the number of votes some of our council members garnered to win their seats. Excerpts from some of these citizen letters were posted by the Aiken Chronicles. One letter read:
“If not for Aikenites who said no, our downtown parkways would all be paved. Be the leaders today who our children and grandchildren will one day thank.”
To her credit, newly elected Mayor Teddy Milner responded, inviting some letter-writers to meet with her at the Smith Hazel Park on Sat Feb 10 at 9:30 am. It isn’t a public hearing but it is a first step in the right direction.
What Does It Take To Be Named A Tree City?
The Tree City title comes with four standards. In the wake of the Williamsburg Street “wrong plan” where 11 mature trees in the parkway were mistakenly destroyed last summer — and now a city-proposed plan that will destroy 68 trees in a City park — it’s time to review those standards. What protections are currently in place? And who has the final say over the fate of City-owned trees? Is Aiken living up to Tree City standards?
Not according to Standards 1 and 2.
ABOVE: Click to view Standard 1 (left) and Standard 2 (right) full size. Read the Tree City standards in entirety at this site.
According to Standard 1, “The public will also know who is accountable for decisions that impact community trees.” Both the Mayor and the City Manager were emailed with a question of who is this board? No response to the question to date.
According to later language in Standard 2, “Importantly, a public tree care ordinance protects public trees at all times, not just during the development process. In other words, the policies for tree planting, care, and removal of trees codified in the ordinance must be continuous, not triggered by an event like landscaping requirements or the land development process.”
The city of Aiken does have several tree ordinances, however, they appear to give top authority to the Planning Director.
Removal. No Grand Tree may be removed unless the Planning Director determines there is absolutely no alternative because of unavoidable grading or because of the required configuration of paving, essential utilities, or buildings. No more than 80 percent of the DBH inches of Significant Trees may be removed unless the Planning Director determines there is absolutely no alternative because of unavoidable grading or because of the required configuration of paving, essential utilities, or buildings.
This authority is of great concern, considering the nod our planning director has given to developers. Below is a video of current Planning Director, Marya Moultrie, working here in conjunction with City Attorney Gary Smith to pave the way for a car wash on a parcel of land that was conditioned to exclude Car Washes.
Should a city planning director be given sole authority to make determinations about our City’s grand and significant trees? And shouldn’t city owned trees in a park enjoy greater protections than ordinances used for a developer on a private project?
Going Forward
In the short-term, City Council should immediately schedule a true agenda-item public hearing on the Smith Hazel plan before 68 trees are destroyed. In the larger picture, City Council should establish and appoint a Tree Advisory Board as suggested in the Tree City standards to make clear who has authority over public trees and to provide greater protection for publicly-owned trees in City parks, parkways and the Arboretum Trail.
What happens to one city-owned tree can happen to any of them. Here, it should go without saying that tree companies and others who profit from the cutting and removing of trees should not be appointed to the advisory board.
__________________
Credit:
Feature photo, “Chainsaw Piggy” used with permission from local artist Martin Buckley.
Update: This FOIA was just returned
Any and all reports on the trees at Smith-Hazel Park from December 2022 -present from city arborist Aaron Campbell.
The City of Aiken has determined that it does not have any records responsive to your request.
Thank you everyone for the strong fight. I think we we will succeed in saving the trees and if not I hope the city leaders enjoy another huge black eye that will not be forgotten or forgiven!
I bought property here after falling in love with Aiken and falling in love with its tree-lined boulevards. Placards in The Gateway to Hitchcock Woods proclaim the devotion of Aiken’s citizens to our trees. These placards note the importance of trees as assets to Aiken’s beauty and lifestyle. CBS’s Morning in Augusta often refers to “pretty Aiken.” Destroying our trees is antithetical to the culture, image, and even the health of this wonderful town. Aiken’s voters need to replace the current misguided leadership.
Agreed
Thanks, Ms. Cornelius, for the most excellent call-to-arms article. It seems that city officials have adopted a bumble, stumble, and obfuscate approach to their duties — and the quite important responsibility of tree protection and management is being neglected as a result.
Thank you, Kelly. I dare say Aiken is indeed imperiled with the possibility of losing her Tree City U.S.A. standing in the same vein as losing her South’s Best Small Town distinction or that of Horse Capitol of the World for that matter. Caring for the trees and the overarching ambiance and charm created by the parks and greeways is a cause I hope we can all rally about as we move forward in unity about the plan to remove 68 trees for a Northside park. I’m sure if the city targeted the South Boundary trees (as it once did)there would be a similar uproar.
This is a well-researched and careful analysis of the current situation, and proves that one does not have to be an expert or trained in a particular field to comment upon or questions public policies and practices.
I agree that the City of Aiken is behind the curve regarding the conservation of its urban forest, especially so during redevelopment of its own properties, but that the situation has improved since 2015, when local conservationist Margaret Shealy wrote a guest op-ed in the Aiken Standard in which she criticized the city as follows:
“ I am weary of the mode of operation of the city of Aiken to chop, hack and remove one of our greatest resources – our trees.”
https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/opinion/protecting-aiken-s-trees/article_b2633070-b068-53bb-8053-808df66030d4.html
This was in regards to the Marion Oak, aka “Maid Marion,” between Colleton Avenue and South Boundary, which was slated to be fallen and consigned largely to conversion to wood chips. The City of Aiken was inexplicably unaware that the Marion White Oak actually qualified for Champion Tree status in South Carolina. It was designated as such before it collapsed during a rain event of only a few inches—just one year after it survived the great Ice Storm of 2014 with only the loss of a few large limbs. (Disclosure: My wife Karen Peck-Moniak and I made the appropriate circumference, height, and canopy spread measurements and submitted them to Clemson University’s Champion Tree Program, where it was listed for a few months as the Champion White Oak of SC).
Before the tree fell, its condemnation was reversed when then City Manager took the advice of noted preservation arborist Guy Meilleur, who was tentatively contracted to undertake cabling and pruning measures to save the ailing tree. Had these measures been taken previously, the tree likely would still be standing, as many of the specimens treated by Mr. Meilleur currently do.
After the Marion Oak fell, city crews began cutting up the limbs and community members poured onto the site to retrieve various parts of the tree. Huge limbs and truck portions were made into works of wooden art and even furniture, acorns were collected and seedlings were eventually planted, and other parts were taken as souvenirs. It was an inspiring scene to see all those who inspired in the past come to pay tribute and preserve parts of the tree.
Ms. Shealy also wrote at that time:
“ Aiken needs an excellent hands-on trained arborist whose primary directive is to monitor, protect and save our special trees and a city protocol policy with neighborhood input that will protect these vital resources.”
Since that time the cause of conserving Aiken’s urban forest, especially the Parkways, has moved forward. The Marion Tree controversy inspired an inventory of city-owned trees funded by a philanthropic donation by Aiken native Rob Johnston.
There is now a more systematic approach to tree maintenance, especially in the Parkways. While imperfect, the current maintenance efforts within the area bounded by Richland, Ave, Chesterfield St, Hampton Ave, and Beaufort St are worth viewing. Very few (only one “grand tree” ) trees to my knowledge have been fallen, the emphasis is overwhelmingly on pruning for tree health as well as public safety and avoiding the more draconian hack jobs we are accustomed to seeing from Dominion Energy and its predecessor SCEG.
However, there is, as the author points out, a very long ways to go and numerous deficiencies.
While the city does have a trained and capable arborist on staff, that person does not hold such a title and is responsible for supervising a large staff of groundskeepers, meaning their job is only partly devoted to arboreal monitoring. The entire grounds crew from supervisor/arborist/horticulturist to entry level workers is also woefully underpaid, as is the rest of the grounds crew—in other words the people who are charged with keeping the City of Aiken beautiful are (along with those who pick up the trash) the most underpaid employees.
The author is dead on that the Planning Director has too much power in these decisions. One of the provisions in the “tree preservation” ordinance is that decisions must comply with “good forestry” practices, yet the City not only does not have a designated, full time Arborist on staff, it does not and is unlikely to ever have an Urban Forester on staff.
A “tree advisory board” might be one answer, but a more appropriate approach would be to restore the City’s Parks Commission. This body was tasked with making recommendations regarding management and stewardship of city parks and the Parkways, but stopped meeting in 2014.
That is a broad task, and one that has great overlap. The existing Recreation Commission is not focused on Parks and certainly not Parkway stewardship. City Council would have to select members who are not only competent and knowledgable, but are willing to ask hard questions and put forth recommendations that are not preconceived by Council and staff.
A restored Parks Commission that holds public meetings, solicits neighborhood input, develops a city protocol for forest stewardship, and reviews staff proposals is the way to go.
Thanks Don, coming from you that is a high compliment and I agree, it doesn’t take a Nuclear Physicist or an Arborist to see the flaws in the current regulations but it might take a math wizard to explain the formula the city uses when destroying trees. Stay tuned for Tree City Math!
I’m at a loss for words.
Thank you, Kelly, for this informative and upsetting article.
The Parks Department, the Capitol Projects Manager (should be plural since we’ve had three in the last year) and The Planning Department all need to have training and certification to be able to make the decisions they are tasked with making.
While speaking to the Parks Director, I was told that they have no obligation to inform City Council or the public of any details of construction, like tree removal…and in fact, neither City Council nor the public were informed of the destruction planned for our city park. One responsible citizen, the President of the local community association where Smith-Hazel is located was finally informed in mid-January 2024 that 68 trees and substantial bulldozing would take place at the park.
We do have an arborist on the payroll. Was he consulted on the Smith-Hazel project? If so, where is his written report?
The City of Aiken should hold a public hearing to inform everyone exactly what is planned for Smith-Hazel, if for no other reason than so we know that they have any organized plan at all.
I have actually FOIA’d the any reports from the city’s arborist regarding this plan from Dec 2022-the present and I am awaiting the results on that and other FOIAs regarding this issue.