A Two-Part Update on The Farmers Market Fiasco
One year ago the failure of the City of Aiken’s Farmers Market streetscape redevelopment project contributed to the defeat of then-incumbent Mayor Rick Osbon, and a further erosion of trust in city government that had lingered in the wake of Project Pascalis.
The project was envisioned as a remake of that part of the Williamsburg Street Parkway surrounding the Market area, and as such was misleadingly called the Williamsburg Street Project. But only a rough concept plan, and not the details, was ever publicly divulged; the thin veneer of public involvement included Community Development Committee meetings that lacked a quorum of members.
The project is funded in part by a $990,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) loan from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Because bidding for the project came in nearly half a million dollars over budget, the City allocated an additional $400,000 from SRS plutonium settlement funds to compensate for the shortfall.
The HUD loan application included language implying the vibrancy of the Farmers Market and surrounding commercial establishments—-the popular Little Howie’s restaurant and Charlie’s Fish Market—-was a thing of the past, stating:
“This section of Williamsburg St has become distressed over the years with vacant, dilapidated commercial buildings and housing. This area once flourished with patrons shopping at the Aiken Farmer’s Market, a restaurant and a fish market on the same block of Williamsburg St.”
The project began just after Memorial Day weekend when ten trees, six of which qualified as “grand trees,” that provided a shaded, comfortable experience at the Market were cut down. Enough public outcry ensued to compel a “pause” the project, a delay that continues to this day.
One result of the public outcry was an internal investigation ordered by City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh that led to a new, internal policy stating that city projects must be subjected to the same processes as the City requires for private developers.
The policy falls well short of that goal. City projects are still only subject to the level of staff review required for private developments, but not to the level of public scrutiny that private developers must face. The gauntlet for developers includes a public hearing by the City of Aiken Planning Commission, followed by two public hearings before City Council—and developments within the historic and Old Aiken Overlay districts must also endure a hearing before the Design Review Board.
As a result of this minimalist approach to reforming the review process for city projects, not a single public hearing has yet to be held on the actual plan or set of plans for the Farmers Market Parkway project and the adjacent Jackson Petroleum property that is also owned by the City.
Figure 1; clockwise from upper left: 1a. Looking South towards Farmers Market (2022); 1b. Conceptual view of post-redevelopment Farmers Market; 1c. September 2022 sign announcing redevelopment project—with no contact information or visuals; 1d. Two of the three remaining trees after ~70 pct of the tree canopy was removed from the Market area. The oak tree in the center of the photo stood in the shelter of larger dominant oak trees and is now more vulnerable to wind and other adverse weather.
Part 1: The Internal Policy
by Don Moniak
August 13, 2024
On May 30, 2023, a City of Aiken contractor began the process of redeveloping the block of the Williamsburg Street Parkway that surrounds the Aiken County Farmers Market (Figure 1a).
The City’s plan was to convert a well-shaded, park-like stand of trees into a generic landscape of clay pavers, irrigated lawns, and a high-density stand of nursery-stock trees and shrubs (Figure 1b).
The project began with the removal of three-quarters of the trees on the block—nearly seventy percent of the towering tree canopy that once shaded and cooled denizens of the Market was gone in a day.
Ten of thirteen trees along the Parkway were removed, including a specimen of a rare Slash Pine subspecies that was part of the local Arboretum collection. Two of the three remaining trees were visibly weaker specimens that are now more susceptible to adverse weather after the dominant trees that sheltered them were removed (Figure 1d).
Two weeks later, during a City Council meeting, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh would tell the citizens of Aiken that the beginning of the $1.4 million streetscape project—which was already $0.5 million over budget—should have been a “joyous occasion.”
Yet, unlike most “joyous occasions,” the start of work was never accompanied by a ribbon-cutting ceremony. Nor was it ever publicly announced.
Despite an Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) sign (Figure 1c), implanted eight months earlier, that announced an impending redevelopment project, very few people had been made aware of the impending wholesale remake of the Parkway—from a natural parklike setting to a generic, cookie-cutter landscape.
Unlike most signage advertising a promising future, the landscape vision was absent from the AMDC sign. People were informed that something was coming, but not of what was to come.
Despite the project vision being two years old, and City Council having given the green light to procuring funding for a redevelopment project, not a single public hearing or even informational meeting revealing the details had ever been held. That remains true to this day.
While the project was not a secret, it was probably the least publicized of impending joyous occasions in the local history of million dollar projects. Whereas Project Pascalis was rightfully criticized for its fragmented and often minimalist approach to the citizen input process, the Farmers Market project was almost entirely devoid of public involvement—it was almost purely a city staff concoction that moved forward with an indirect nod from City Council, while ignoring Farmers Market customers and vendors as well as the broader taxpaying public.
The combined lack of public notice and citizen involvement was a strong contributing cause of the outcry to the hacking of the Farmers Market Parkway’s stand of trees. Antonyms of joy ranging from anger and anguish to discontent, exasperation, and vexation characterized the dominant emotions of the following weeks.
Those sentiments incited a maelstrom at City Hall. One employee described the external uproar as requiring “triage.” (Figure 2)
On June 2nd, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh wrote to his various responsible department heads—planning, economic development, public works, engineering and utilities—-to order an investigation into the “subpar” project beginning and an internal policy to prevent “such an atrocious” event from ever happening again (Figure 3).
When Mr. Bedenbaugh addressed the situation at the next City Council meeting on June 12th, his words were more constrained, stating that he shared the community’s “indignation.”
Council members followed suit, with Mayor Rick Osbon stating the “trees should not have been cut down;” although in reality the trees that were cut down, with the exception of one smaller maple in the midcanopy cut for utilities access, were the exact trees that the year-old plan identified for cutting and removal.
But for some reason, Bedenbaugh did not disclose his strong and succinct memo that called for a new internal policy. Instead, he described any internal review as a “staff matter;” while stating “the review process for our (city) projects must conform to the same process as a private developer.”
The Internal Project Review determined that “it has not been common practice for city projects to be processed through the typical development review process that commercial developments are required to complete. Consensus was that all future City projects must undergo this same review process.”
The end result was an internal policy (Figure 4) that mirrored the internal review findings; one that mandates the City follow the same procedures on City projects as it requires of developers on private projects; and also placed more oversight power with the City Manager’s office.
Figure 4: New Internal Policy for City Projects. (Click to enlarge).
However, the “do our projects like we require developers to do theirs” policy has one glaring omission—the presence of public input and hearings. The new policy only mandates internal staff review akin to that of private developments.
Private developers have to go above and beyond mere staff review—they are subjected to a more rigorous public review process that involves at least three public hearings—one before the semi-autonomous Planning Commission, and two before City Council. In some instances the Design Review Board requires a hearing.
While most commercial developments sail through the public review process, without some citizen scrutiny every development would get a much easier pass.
In the past 18 months, one residential development (Henderson Downs) did not even make it past the Planning Commission level; two others (Mayfield Drive Estates and Sundy Street Apartments) stalled while compromises were made with residents of older, well-established neighborhoods; Parker’s Kitchen at Whiskey Road died during the second public hearing before City Council; and the
Silver Bluff Overlay District plan died after City Council removed it from the agenda—a direct result of strong discontent from county residents who want less, not more, intrusion by the City into the unincorporated county.
Finally, the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, after receiving one approval by both City Council and County Council, withered on the development vine after City Council opted to avoid further controversy; with County Council citing a very real sewage capacity shortfall for their decision.
In short, citizen involvement and review at multiple levels is a proven remedy for stifling misguided projects or for making other developments more compatible with existing neighborhoods.
Why does the City of Aiken refuse to allow the same process for projects on public property, especially after the Farmer’s Market fiasco?
The Farmer’s Market streetscape project is hardly the only one on City property to avoid public scrutiny in the form of Public Hearings, with the City opting instead for a fragmented and incomplete system of scattered meetings at best. Other examples include the proposed Greenway Trail, Smith-Hazel Park redevelopment, Generations Park expansion, management of the Brunswick Tract, and the fate of the City’s remaining property in The Alley.
When will the City of Aiken relearn that area residents are there to contribute in meaningful ways that make developments of all stripes more compatible with their surroundings; or in the worst of circumstances there to provide the gut check to just say no to a bad idea?
Seeking early and meaningful citizen input and scrutiny on city projects and new major ordinances has to be a better idea than cutting and removing public involvement like a grand Farmer’s Market tree.
Coming Next: Farmer’s Market Project: What Went Wrong?
References:
FOIA #235-2024 files: New Internal Policy for city projects and 5-page Internal Review of Williamsburg Street Project.
Bibliography of Past Stories
Farmer’s Market Revitilization Project Underway was the first area news story on the near-total removal of the Farmer’s Market stand of trees. .
The Williamsburg 10 provided the precise details of the near-total removal of the Farmer’s Market stand of trees.
Four Well Lit Trees and Plan A and Amended Plan A examined what the real plan was versus the perceived plans.
Poised for the Next Phase of the Farmers Market-Williamsburg Streeet Demolition exposed how city officials were poised to continue the project with little to no public notice.
Whose Project is it Again…Bueller highlighted the bureaucratic football of blame surrounding the controversy.
Divesting of Parks and Open Space, from September 2022, detailed how the City of Aiken was preparing to close neighborhood parks and possibly privatize Farmers Market.
