Every year, I wait and watch for the springtime arrival of “my” Yellow-Billed Cuckoos from their South American wintering grounds. While I’ve only ever seen them on three or four occasions, the landscape would seem empty without them. Now that summer is drawing nigh, I’m still waiting to see them. Cuckoos are very reclusive birds. Many people go their whole lives without realizing we have Yellow-Billed Cuckoos in our area. While sightings may be rare, they do have a way of making their presence known.
My yard provides ideal habitat — generous tree canopy from the surrounding woods, bordered with open sky and, nearby, creeks and ponds. Come May, I’ll be sitting in my backyard soaking up the springtime sun when, all of the sudden, I’ll hear that familiar Cuckoo song emanating from the depths of some dense foliage. Song? Well, I’ll admit that description is a little generous. To me, it sounds more like a frog, or, as others have described it, a door knocker hitting a metal plate. It is a rapid, throaty “ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-kow-kow-kow-kowlp-kowlp-kowlp.” Not a typical bird song, I’ll admit.
Often, loud noises, such as thunder, will provoke them to burst forth in this “song,” which has led to their alternate name as Rain Crows — foretellers of rain. This year, I learned that Cuckoos actually have two songs. As the summer days laten, they may switch their song to something that sounds more like a Mourning Dove. It is rather continuous and lengthy “ooh-ooh-ooh,” or it could be described as “coo-coo-coo-coo.”
Thinking about this for a short time, I had to smack myself in the head. I realized that this is how they got their name! Coo-coo. Cuckoo! Sometimes I’m a little slow at catching on to these things. A range of their song variations can be here at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Macaulay Library. Below is a short clip from of a Yellow-Billed Cuckoo calling from the trees of an Arkansas farmstead.
During my online research this week, I learned that the words “kook” and “kooky” are derived from the name of this bird. How anyone can characterize Cuckoos as being crazy is beyond me. It seems that, in the olden days, people heard these birds cooing incessantly throughout the day and began labeling anyone who speaks senselessly and pointlessly as being cuckoo.
Although the subject was in debate for quite a while, it has been determined that the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is indeed related to the European Cuckoo (of clock fame). Also in the family is the South American Ani (of crossword puzzle fame) and the Roadrunner (of Saturday morning cartoon fame).
If you should ever be lucky enough to see one, they are very beautiful birds — long and slender, about 10 to 12 inches in length, with light brown coloration above and a clean white color below. Also, there is a large cinnamon-colored patch on each wing. Most distinctive to me is the long black tail with bold white spots on the underside. When flying, that long tail seems to flap in the breeze– just as might a flag or a banner.
Cuckoos are very shy and retiring birds. They mostly sit in the depths of some dense tree watching for movement… a cicada, a katydid, a beetle, a small lizard or frog. These are a part of their diet. What Cuckoos are best known for, however, is their voracious appetite for caterpillars. In the northern part of their range, they consume plentiful quantities of Gypsy Moth caterpillars. In our neck of the woods, they eat Tent Caterpillars (Malacocoma americanum) in the spring, and Webworms (Hyphantria cunea) in the fall. A single Cuckoo can down 100 caterpillars in one sitting.
Contrary to popular belief, the foliage-munching Tent Caterpillars and Webworms, (which are actually caterpillars), do not typically damage trees. At worst, the sight may be aesthetically displeasing for a while. But the leaves grow back, and life goes on. The populations of these caterpillars are actually kept in check by predators such as birds, spiders and wasps. In the spring, Tent Caterpillars are an important food source for many nesting birds and for the many species of migrating birds arrive to our area. The Webworms of autumn likewise provide migrating birds with the energy they need to return to their wintering grounds — a distance that, in the case of the Yellow-Billed Cuckoos, may range as far south as Argentina.
Property owners tempted to take up arms by poisoning and torching these caterpillars would do well to remember the old saw about beauty being in the eye of the beholder. To a bird at the beginning or the end of a very long journey, the sight of a webbed nest in a tree is a thing of beauty, indeed.
September is here, and soon it will be time for the Cuckoos and the youngsters they have raised to return to their wintering grounds in South and Central America. I do so worry about them and their perilous journeys. Being night fliers, there is the constant danger of losing course due to light pollution and to collisions with buildings and communication towers (cell, TV, and others). An American Bird Conservancy study of just 17 of these towers reported the deaths of 586 Cuckoos from collision with guy wires and the towers themselves. Sadly, 4 to 5 million songbirds are killed yearly during migration in these collisions. Between the man-made hazards of migration, pesticides and habitat loss, the numbers of Yellow-Billed Cuckoos are said to be in steep decline. To be sure, I will be anxiously awaiting the return of “my” birds next year. In his poem ‘To the Cuckoo,’ William Wordsworth may have said it best.
Thrice welcome, darling of the Spring! Even yet thou art to me No bird, but an invisible thing, A voice, a mystery.
Contributor Burt Glover became an accidental naturalist during his earliest childhood days exploring the dirt roads, backyards, polo field and barns of the Magnolia-Knox-Mead neighborhood of 1950s Aiken. Birds are his first love, and he can identify an impressive range by song alone. He asserts that he is an observer, not an expert, on the topics of his writings, which range from birds, box turtles, frogs and foraging, to wasps, weeds, weather and beyond.
The Failure of Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford and Woodford Trace Apartments, Phase II
by Don Moniak September 2, 2023
In early 2022, the $100 million plus downtown demolition and redevelopment endeavor code-named Project Pascalis was widely considered a done deal. Despite promises of “transparency” during the November 9, 2021, project announcement, not a single open, public meeting pertaining to any part of the project was held until March 1, 2022. That was the day when the demolition of both the vacant Hotel Aiken and the occupied Beckman Building on Laurens Street was approved.
The project was put on pause just under four months later, and then, three months after the pause, the project was canceled.
The reason for this cancellation? After March 1st, a movement to stop the project grew and intensified. Opponents filled public meetings, rallied with a petition with statutory teeth, posted yard signs, wrote letters to the editor, and supported perhaps the largest lawsuit ever filed against the City of Aiken—Blake et al vs The City of Aiken et al.
It was a wave of protest that swamped a confident City Council and its city-funded Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC).
In the first seven months of 2023, two more waves of protest and dissent caught Aiken City Council unprepared and overmatched. Overwhelming objections to the Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford project and the latest phase of the Woodford Trace Apartments complex along Dougherty Road both failed to move forward during their first public hearings when Council members failed to make the necessary motions to approve.
The process leading to these failures energized enough Aiken residents to help swing the Mayoral primary election in favor of challenger Teddy Milner; who won a runoff against incumbent Mayor Rick Osbon by a mere fourteen votes.
Parker’s Kitchen at Whiskey and Stratford Roads.
Parker’s Kitchen is a major fuel and convenience store chain based out of Savannah, Georgia. In 2022 the company sought to establish its presence in the City of Aiken by building three new, 24-hour gas stations and convenience stores with hot food bars.
The initial two projects sailed through the City’s approval process. Both locations are typical for a large, modern gas station/convenience store—at major intersections and a good distance from residential neighborhoods.
The first project involved demolishing the blighted and long-vacant Dick Smith auto dealership at the intersection of West Richland Avenue and the bypass. The approval process experienced zero objections. If anything, the redevelopment of the former dealership property was welcomed with a community sigh of relief. Demolition has since occurred.
The second project location is on a greenfield site at the junction of East Pine Log Road and Hwy 78. It is one-third of a mile from the nearest residential neighborhoods. Again, the approval process experienced zero objections.
The third proposed Parker’s Kitchen site was to be located at the junction of Whiskey Road and Stratford Drive. But this site was close to residential neighborhoods whose only access road is Stratford Drive.
Neighbors who had gained experience fighting city hall during an unsuccessful effort to stop a LuLu’s car wash responded quickly and efficiently. The voices of protest were not “Not in My Backyard,” they were “Not in Our Neighborhood,” and “Not in Our Town.”
The objections following the first public notification of the project prompted Parker’s Kitchen representatives to hold a community meeting. The event did little to quell the growing protests.
Planning Commission Approval
Parker’s Kitchen’s proposal then proceeded as scheduled to the city’s Planning Commission. The meeting was held on January 10, 2023. Thirteen citizens rose to speak against the project during an unusually long meeting. Voices of support were absent.
Concerned citizens at the meeting presented a long list of potential drawbacks to the project. They described the probability of aggravating existing traffic problems at one of the most dangerous and poorly designed intersections in Aiken; the threats of a fuel truck fire or explosion that would block the only entranceway into and out of their neighborhoods; the specter of increased levels of benzene, toluene, and other compounds contaminating the air and stormwater runoff; and the fact that zoning conditions approved for the property in 2003 do not allow for 24-hour gas stations and convenience stores nor car washes.
Citizen opposition was sophisticated, media savvy, informative, and persistent. Several current and former Savannah River Site employees described the difference between the “Defense in Depth” safety culture in their workplace versus an apparent lack of safety concerns, beyond vehicle traffic, during the project’s planning process. Residents caught the developer contradicting their own facts within the same meeting.
The Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend the project move forward for City Council approval. The condition for moving forward, though, was a finished traffic study. (1)
Two commissioners, Sam Erb and Charles Matthews, voted against the proposal. Mr. Erb also serves on the Board of the Aiken Corporation and is a highly respected member of the community who operated a popular restaurant in The Alley, the West Side Bowery, for more than thirty years. His dissent should have provided an additional clue to City Council that trouble was ahead.
Their rationale for dissenting was not expressed at the meeting and not in the city’s official record. However, Mr. Erb later told the Aiken Standard that he “wouldn’t want a gas station in front of his home either. “
Developer Objects to the Delay
On March 27th, the main Parker’s Kitchen representative, Daniel Ben Yisreal, appeared before City Council to argue for expediting the scheduling of a first hearing, claiming the company’s contractual deadline for their property purchase was soon to expire.
The discussion expended nearly five minutes of the thirty-minute agenda slot for “public comment on nonagenda items.” Although public comment on nonagenda items” is limited to three minutes, Mr. Yisrael— a former Planning Director for the City of Goose Creek— was allowed five minutes.
The move was highly unorthodox since the Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford project was going through the official, legal approval process. The conversation constituted a de facto pre-public hearing that was not a part of the project’s public record.
First Hearing and a Continuation
The first official City Council hearing was delayed until April 24th. Coincidentally, a fuel tanker fire had closed traffic on I-20 East just ten days earlier—fortifying the opponent position that such an event was a probability that required consideration.
By April 24th, opposition had intensified, not abated. Following a fifteen-minute Parker’s Kitchen corporate slide show and friendly Council Q and A, the wave of dissent and protest dominated the hearing. Support for the project remained absent more than three months after the Planning Commission’s meeting.
In the end, Council appeared to be overwhelmed by the dissenting views, and stumped by the argument that the 2003 zoning ordinance for that location prohibited 24-hour gas stations and convenience stores.
When the time to vote arrived, Council took the completely unexpected step to “continue” their first hearing to a future date. This decision delayed any hope of a rapid, conclusive second hearing where stamps of approval preceded by anecdotes in support of controversial projects are the norm.
The Project Fails
This continuation of the first hearing did not occur until June 12th. It was at this hearing that, before a single citizen could speak, Council did the seemingly impossible.
After a motion to approve was made by Councilwoman Kay Brohl, the rest of Council sat in silence. No second to the motion was made, and the project died.
Following a short, stunned silence, there was a loud round of applause from a united audience. Mayor Rick Osbon then stated, at 41:30 of the meeting:
“If no motion is made, or if the motion is not seconded, the presiding officer will move on to the next agenda item.”
The same process occurred on February 27, 2023, when a mere request by a property owner for city water service also failed due to a lack of a second motion to approve. There was no lecture that day to the audience about how the process should work.
Once an ordinance fails, a developer must wait one year before reapplying for approval—unless three Council members can be convinced to reintroduce the proposal after three months.
Less than three months after the Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford Drive failed, Mayor Osbon lost his reelection bid. But he does not leave office until after the general election. There is still time for his supporting cast of Council members to bring the project forward prior to his departure.
The moment when Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford failed to move forward.
The Woodford Trace Failure
In January of 2020, Aiken City Council approved the first phase of the Woodford Trace apartment complex. The project was the second set of new apartments in the Whiskey Road and Dougherty Road area.
A contentious debate preceded that approval. Numerous residents and long-time local businesses, including Aiken Motorcycle, Dixie Lock and Safe, and Glass Works, protested the project proposal in letters and during public hearings. Documented traffic, litter, and public safety concerns associated with a recently completed and occupied adjacent complex, called Palmetto Crossing, dominated the discussion
Council still approved the project by a vote of 5-2. The most common argument in favor of the project was the perceived need for an affordable apartment complex in South Aiken.
Since the Woodford Trace, Phase I approval, construction moved forward and the entire parcel was clearcut. The before and after aerial photos are below, and suggest a forty percent open space requirement is unlikely to be met.
Phase one of the Woodford Trace Apartment complex parcel. Palmetto Crossing apartments are to the east. (Aiken County property database) Woodford Trace area, January 2023. The forested area to the south was proposed for the second phase of Woodford Trace apartments.
Woodford Trace Apartments Phase 2
Three and a half years after the first Woodford Trace development was approved, a second phase was proposed by the new owner, Wellers Ridge, LLC. (2). The project ignited a second wave of dissent and protest just a month after the Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford defeat was defeated.
When the Planning Commission held its July 11th public meeting for the proposal, four citizens spoke against the proposal, and only the developer spoke on its behalf. The PC voted 4-1 to recommend City Council take up the case. Commissioner Sam Erb was the lone dissenting vote.
A hearing was scheduled for August 14th, one week before the Mayoral runoff election. By then, substantial opposition had coalesced, assisted by a few recent veterans of the Parker’s Kitchen fight. Like Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford, the issue qualified as “Not in Our Neighborhood,” and “Not in Our Town.”
Signs protesting the proposal and encouraging people to write to Council and attend the hearing dotted Dougherty Road. The signs focused on the flooding problems affecting Dougherty Road. The exacerbation of existing traffic problems was another common concern.
Dozens of signs like this dotted Dougherty Road before the August 14, 2023 Public Hearing. Just before New Year’s Day in 2020, backed up storm drains caused the closure of Dougherty Road for two days, causing a detour and impacting local businesses.
More than thirty concerned citizens attended the meeting and almost fully occupied one side of the chambers.
During the “public comment on non-agenda items,” the history of Dougherty Road flooding was addressed by Aiken area resident Chris Johnson. He described how flooding problems were four decades old, and the foolishness of pursuing another development after forty years of failures to remedy the problem.
The second speaker to address the proposal during the “public comment on non-agenda items” was interrupted in mid-sentence, and asked by Presiding Officer Mayor Osbon to sit down and wait for the public hearing. His opportunity to speak never arose.
After the agenda item was introduced by Assistant City Manager Mary Tilton, City Attorney Gary Smith threw a wrench into the process. At issue was “Condition Seven,” which required the developer to finish an access road. Mr. Smith informed Council that a previous agreement required the city to build the road.
The Planning Commission had issued its recommendations two weeks prior that included Condition Seven. Mr. Smith, who routinely reviews all development applications and was absent from the PC’s meeting, had waited until the proposal was introduced before informing Council of the issue.
After confusion reigned as to whether an amendment to remove Condition Seven was necessary, Council then appeared to move forward. But the project proposal failed after no motion was made to approve it. The project had met the same fate as Parker’s Kitchen.
One difference this time was that Mayor Osbon did not describe the lack of a motion as “not the way this works.”
With the runoff election only a week away, debate over the controversial Woodford Trace Apartments proposal was curtailed by the inaction of City Council. A long hearing featuring project opponents was avoided, and another plan went down in defeat.
Like Parker’s Kitchen at Stratford, the project cannot return for at least another year; unless three City Council members propose to return it to a future meeting agenda after three months. But any attempt to do so is likely to strengthen the perception that the lack of a motion to approve was a means to avoid debate before the election.
It is unfortunate that it takes a large wave of almost unanimous citizen dissent and protest to open up Aiken City Council’s eyes to projects which are unpopular and ill-conceived, but that remains the current situation. It is only through strongly organized, thoughtful, and substantive opposition that the misguided projects of the future will be prevented.
The moment when the Woodford Trace Apartments project failed to move forward.
Footnote
(1) This traffic study condition stood in sharp contrast to the controversial Silver Bluff Shopping Center project adjacent to Village at Woodside. In that case, the condition for a traffic study has yet to be met one year after the Planning Commission unanimously approved that proposal.
