Aiken City Council created a new Farmers Market Committee in August 2024 to advise city staff on the its operations. The committee will consist of “registered vendors,” and only “registered vendors” are allowed to vote for the committee members. Since Aiken City Council opted not to define a “registered vendor,” City staff has since defined it as one who “has submitted an application, has been approved to sell at the market, and does so at least 18 times in 6 months.” The origin of the definition is unknown.
by Don Moniak November 16, 2024
On August 25, 1958, the Aiken City Council passed a City Ordinance* that created a Farmers Market Commission; which gave the Commission the authority to operate a Farmers Market in the City of Aiken. The membership back then included the County Agent, the Supervisor of Aiken County, the Executive Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, a member of City Council, a farmer who was a member of The Grange, and two residents of the City who were appointed by City Council.
The Aiken County Farmers Market has been located at Williamsburg Street and Richland Avenue since that time. The property was owned by the South Carolina Department of Transportation until October 2022, at which time ownership of the Farmers Market Parkway and right-of-way was transferred to the City of Aiken.
The Commission existed until sometime in the early 2000’s. There are no historic records of its proceedings in the City’s document repository; nor any record of it having been disbanded. At some point, City staff became the de facto supervisors of the market.
In August 2024, at the urging of staff, Aiken City Council amended the old, unenforced Farmers Market Commission Ordinance with Ordinance 08122024, thus replacing the Commission with a Farmer’s Market Committee and formally transferring operational power to city staff.
The Ordinance (Figure 1) contains one contradiction and lacks some clarity in definitions.
On the one hand, Council created a committee “to advise and regulate a farmers market in the city.” At the same time, the Committee’s authority to regulate is undermined by the provision stating that any vote on a policy matter before it is only a “recommendation to the city staff who oversee the market.” The Committee only has the power to recommend, not regulate.
The lack of clarity regards committee membership—which is composed of seven members who are tasked with meeting four times a year—and the voting powers of vendors.
The only criteria for Committee participation—including nominating, voting, and/or serving—is to be a registered vendor. The Ordinance states:
“The farmers market committee shall consist of seven members who are elected by the registered vendors of the market at the time of the election. One month prior to elections, nominations will take place. The seven members will consist of four farmers, one wholesales, one baker/other and one crafter. Terms will be one year, unless the committee member is no longer a registered vendor of the market.”
Unfortunately, the term “registered vendor” was never defined by Council.
Figure 1: Farmer’s Market Commitee Ordinance passed on August 12, 2024. (click to enlarge)
On Tuesday, November 12, 2024, Aiken County resident and Farmers Market vendor Vicki Simons addressed City Council— during the open public comment period of its regular meeting—with concerns over the inconsistency between the actual Ordinance and its implementation as it pertains to “registered vendors.”
“Good evening, Mayor Milner and members of Aiken City Council. My name is Vicki Simons. I live north of Aiken in Aiken County. I am a 100% Grower/Producer of microgreens, who first began selling produce at the Aiken Farmers Market in 2019.
My posts on Facebook prove that I am a strong advocate of the Aiken Farmers Market and my fellow vendors, particularly those who sell healthy food.
In June of this year, I:
— expressed my support for changing the City’s ordinance regarding creating a “farmers market committee”; and — asked what the term ‘registered’ means when it comes to vendors who can be elected to the Farmers Market Committee.
A City employee answered my question that night, in somewhat vague terms.**
Council adopted the change to the Farmers Market Committee Code this past August.
Please note that there is no detail in the Code about the criteria of a ‘registered vendor.’
Last week, I received from a City employee an email stating that nominations for the “farmers market committee” could be submitted during certain hours from November 11 – 22. In that same email, there was a paragraph that stated the following:
“Criteria: A registered vendor is a vendor who has submitted an application, has been approved to sell at the market, and does so at least 18 times in 6 months. “Individuals elected to the committee who no longer meet the registered vendor requirement shall resign. “Individuals not meeting the registered vendor requirement cannot vote.”
I asked the City employee from where this limitation came. No answer has come yet. I am extremely concerned that these new, undocumented “criteria” may restrict:
— Both those who can be nominated for the Farmers Market Committee; — And those who may vote for Farmers Market Committee nominees.
Again, the criteria states that a vendor had to be approved to sell at the market ‘at least 18 times in 6 months.’
The criteria do not state which 6 months. What if the 6 months under consideration is outside the growing season?
As a year-round vendor at the Aiken Farmers Market, I know of only 3 vendors of non- egg and non-meat grown produce — other than myself — who are also there year-round. If a vendor sells only once a week, 18 times represents 18 weeks — or a time frame of about 4-1/2 months. If a farmer has a growing season that is shorter than 4-1⁄2 months, why should he/she be removed from consideration of being on the Farmers Market Committee?
Some local farmers have been doing business at the Aiken Farmers Market for many years. In my opinion, they have gained experience and knowledge that I believe must not be discounted by the additional criteria stated in the email.
I am also concerned that these new criteria may lean toward being an “ex post facto law.’ (Editor’s note: An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences or status of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law).
Let us make sure that we abide by the irrefutable leadership law called “The Law of Navigation,” so that in charting the course for the Aiken Farmers Market Committee, we highly value local farmers.
With the Council’s permission, I can read a questionnaire* that I wrote, which I believe would provide more structure to the Aiken Farmers Market Committee nomination process than a blank canvas.
Do you have any questions?”
Following her speech, the only comment from Council came from Councilwoman Kay Brohl, who stated, in part:
“My colleagues, correct me if I am wrong but I think when we talked about this, what we wanted to be sure was to include our local farmers and not exclude them. If you are a farmer that doesn’t have irrigation, and your crop fails — like when we’ve had a month with no rain, or we had the deluge — if you have tomatoes or certain crops, you’re not going to have any, so you’re not going to be able to come and bring something to the market. So I think she makes a very valid point because our whole gist was to just make sure we included our local farmers.”
However, no other Councilmembers nor City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh offered any followup to Ms. Brohl’s concerns.
No action was taken to address the seemingly arbitrary nature of city staff’s definition of a registered Farmers Market vendor; a definition that clearly has the potential to exclude longtime vendors whose market season might not be six months long—most notably farmers—from participation in the Committee.
Council failed to ask about the origin of the new and improvised definition of “registered vendor,” and has so far opted to allow city staff to amend an ordinance without Council approval.
Since there is no allowance for more than one election a year, the removal of two farmer representatives from the Committee could be disruptive to its proceedings; and even result in farmers temporarily moving from majority representation to minority representation—thus undermining Council’s intent in practice as well as theory.
Footnotes
*Photos of the 1980 Farmer’s Market Commission Ordinance, with reference to the 1958 Ordinance. (click to enlarge).
“Eric Gordon, Tourism Manager, stated registered is an ambiguous term. He said he was looking at this as someone who is paid to sell at the Market and is coming regularly at the Market. They pay, but they also have to be attending. He said that was his definition of registered.” (Page 14).
In 2014, an up-swelling of opposition to removing the Marion Oak tree resulted in an effort to preserve the tree for at least another generation. Unbeknownst to City officials, the tree was actually the largest White Oak in South Carolina; and was added to the Clemson Champion Trees of South Carolina list in the midst of the controversy.
An editorial in the Aiken Standard by the late Aiken conservationist Margaret Shealy advocated saving the tree while alerting people to “the mode of operation of the city of Aiken to chop, hack and remove one of our greatest resources – our trees.”
Instead of removing the giant oak tree, City Manager John Klimm opted to recommend retaining historic tree preservation expert Guy Mueiller to implement a preservation strategy (Figure 1) of crown reduction pruning, cabling, and soil enhancement; an action supported by city engineers (see Mr. Mueiller’s assessment of the situation in The Tale of Maid Marion ).
Even though the tree collapsed before he could implement the plan, the community came out in droves to honor the tree that had been so admired, to take a piece as a keepsake, to haul off a large enough limb to craft furniture, or collect acorns to perpetuate its progeny.
Several years ago a group of area residents tied themselves to a giant oak to object to the excessive pruning of trees on Colleton Street by South Carolina Electric and Gas; actions described by the protesters as a “slaughter,” and “butchering.” The uproar compelled the City to intervene and negotiate with SCEG.
Just one year ago the Farmer’s Market “tree massacre” of ten trees and three-quarters of the canopy on that portion of that portion of Williamsburg Street drew so much citizen outrage that the associated redevelopment project was halted, and has yet to resume. Among the trees removed was a rare variety of slash pine that was part of the city-wide Arboretum; a tree that did not qualify as “grand,” but was arguably the most significant tree on the block.
Figures 1 and 2: Partial details of the proposed Marion Oak Preservation plan and measurements for Champion Tree nomination; click to enlarge.
The Unauthorized Tree Removal of 1979
Sometime on the weekend of September 29, 1979, Aiken resident Dr. Robert Bowen had an oak tree* that occupied the right of way in front of his property on 425 Laurens St fallen and removed (*The tree’s measurements were never reported).
In a letter to City Council, then-City Attorney Henry Summerall explained the situation (Figure 3).
Because the tree was in the right of way, the oak was a city-owned tree. However, the tree was removed without authorization. Shortly after the tree was cut, Mr. Henry Summerall advised City Horticulturist Tom Rapp, who had reported the illegal tree removal, to cite Mr. Bowen for violating of Section 17-7 of Aiken Municipal Code; which at the time stated:
“It shall be unlawful for any for any person to cut, break, strip off the bark, or damage in any manner any tree or shrub planted in any street, square, or other public place in the City.”
Mr. Summerall then prepared a resolution for City Council that would approve suing Mr. Bowen for damages; writing that an example should be made from this situation to deter future unauthorized felling or otherwise damaging city trees (see Page 13).
Lawyering Up
Mr. Bowen then retained Attorney Buzz Rich, a partner in the law firm of Lybrand, Rich, to present his case.
In a letter (Figure 4) to City Attorney Summerall, Mr. Rich explained that his client had been compelled to remove the tree in order to salvage the sale of an old house the buyer was having moved to another location. When the buyer threatened to cancel the sale, Mr. Bowen had the tree cut to enable the house relocation.
In his concluding paragraph, Mr. Rich wrote:
“This has been a most unfortunate occurrence for all parties concerned, and I hope that this will settle the matter with no ill feelings toward anyone. I personally deplore the destruction of any of our beautiful trees and shrubbery in Aiken, however, I understand the position which Doctor Bowen found himself to be in, and I trust that you will also so understand.”
Mr. Summerall’s memo to Council admitted that the tree removal “was a necessity in order to get the house removed at a particular time;” Dr. Bowen was willing to pay for a new tree “if the expenses incurred are reasonable;” and no legal action would be taken “unless it becomes necessary.” The end result of the code violation was never reported).
Information regarding another house relocation that was actually prevented on the basis that tree removal or removals were necessary can be found in The Chairman’s BiasandAiken’s Cousin Problem.
December 2022 Farmer’s Market Streetscape Project Bid Package Designated Four Trees as Protected, with Floodlights Planned Around Each Tree.
by Don Moniak
June 17, 2023 (updated June 18, 2023: correction; only three of the original trees remain, and the cited Permit Plan is dated 10/19/22, and contained in bid package dated 12/8/22)
In November 2022, the City of Aiken held a pre-bid meeting for prospective contractors seeking the $1.5 to $2.0 million Williamsburg Street/Farmer’s Market Streetscape project. The bid package dated December 8, 2022, included a “Tree Protection Plan” that would leave four residual trees out of the twelve on the block. The “Landscape Lighting Plan” indicates floodlights were planned to illuminate the four residual trees.
On May 30-31, 2023–the first two days of the project—eight trees were cut and removed, and three remained. The City of Aiken has yet to provide any updated plans or project change orders in support of its position that the felling of the eight trees was a mistake due to a mixup in project plans.
The Cutting and the City Council Meeting.
The nearly $2 million Williamsburg Street steetscape project surrounding the Aiken Farmer’s Market began on May 30, 2023. By May 31st, three-quarters of the trees in the Williamsburg Street Parkway had either been cut or were in the process of being removed. Two of the three remaining were heavily pruned.
In all, nine trees of varying age and size around Aiken’s Farmer’s Market were felled. Five were towering, dominant, veteran trees with wide spreading crowns that shaded the market area; and three were vigorous younger trees. Two of the three that are left are the most likely to drop branches or fall onto the market place, and both had lower crown ratios than the nine that were cut.
The heavy handed removal in a “Tree City USA” provoked a substantial uproar. The controversy was significant enough to be addressed at the next City Council meeting on Monday, June 12, 2023.
The issue was adressed before the first “public comments on non-agenda items,” The official responses included; “this should not have happened.” and “I want to echo the apology that this should not have happened.” (1)
Later in the meeting, during the second “public comments on non-agenda items,” (2) Aiken resident Valerie Wrobel’s persistent questioning flushed out more information. The official response in regard to fault was:
“It is not the contractor they followed the plans that the city gave them that should not have been given to them. The old set of plans were a set of plans that should not have been given to the contractor.”
Neither the old nor new set of plans that were referenced were publicly disclosed. The City of Aiken’s website contains no information about the final plans. Cranston Engineering, the contract project designer, was tasked with completing both a conceptual design and a final design. Neither is available on the city’s website.
The Bid Package
On November 17, 2022, the City of Aiken held a pre-bid meeting with five prospective contractors. Petersburg, Virginia based Quality “Plus”Services was awarded the contract on February 15, 2023, for $1,483,865.55. The company’s website states it “provides engineering, construction, mechanical, electrical and maintenance services for all major industrial sectors throughout the United States.”
On April 10, 2023, City Council approved allocating $400,000 of Savannah River Site plutonium settlement funds to the Farmer’s Market Streetscape Project.” The reason given was “the bids came in well over budget.” The final cost was not reported.
Within the Permit Plan, “Existing conditions and Demolition Plan” (page 4) documented twelve trees of varying age and size in or around the Parkway. (3). Note #4 mandated that tree protection be installed around “ existing trees,” and referenced a “Tree Protection Plan.”
The “Landscape Layout Plan” (Page 20) has a small note stating “TREE TO BE PRESERVED. QUANTITY 4 TOTAL IN PROJECT,” and again referenced a “Tree Protection Plan.”
The “Tree Protection Plan” is part of the “Landscape Enlargement Plans.” (page 22). The document indicates four residual trees (below). Three of these are featured in before and after photos taken after the cutting; three large oak trees, including the largest White Oak on the block. An unidentified hardwood was also a leave tree, but it ultimately was also cut.
The Tree Protection Plan. Each circle represents the canopy spread of the three residual trees (circled). The smaller one in the center was also removed.
Preceding the landscape plans is the “Landscape Lighting Plan” (page 19) showing four LED outdoor floodlights circling each residual tree. Lighting Plan Note #8 requires that the best locations be found to “illuminate tree canopy from four sides.”
The illumination plan for the 42 inch diameter residual White Oak. B = LED Floodlights.
That was the plan as of December 8, 2022, for the existing trees (3) surrounding the Aiken Farmer’s Market set amidst one of the most visited of Aiken’s forested parkways. Whether a project change order was completed between December 8, 2022 and May 30, 2023, is unknown.
Answering Questions
If a project change order was issued, or the project design otherwise changed prior to the start of work, the City of Aiken should publicly disclose the final project design documents (4), especially any updated “Tree Protection Plan.”
The City could also describe what went wrong in the contract administration process that involves close cooperation between the city’s engineering department and the contractor. (5)
Finally, the City of Aiken could ask if a public review process that included at least one public hearing might have prevented the major alteration of the Farmer’s Market tree scape and the subsequent apologies from city officials. This was an Aiken Municipal Development Commission project, and therefore required a public hearing and a legal redevelopment plan.
The 42 inch diameter, open grown White Oak in the background is one of four residual trees in the Farmer’s Market/Williamsburg Street Parkway. The tree was also moderately pruned. The plan is to illuminate it on four sides, with no regard to any wildlife foraging or nesting in the tree.
One of the two large veteran oaks remaining in the parkway has less than a 40 percent crown ratio and is susceptible to wind damage after the shelter provided by the larger stand of trees was removed. One conceptual drawing of the future Farmer’s Market area, featuring a poorly shaded landscape with most trees closer to the height of the market building. From the 2021 Site Analysis and Due Diligence for the Williamsburg Street Redevelopment. which was not the final conceptual design nor the final design.
The landscape plans do show the desired future tree scape, as well as the location of various shrubs. The plans call for 73 trees to be planted in the 2.3 acre project area, of which 47 are oak species. Ten of the trees are Serviceberries, which is more of a large shrub than a tree.
The plan also calls for 720 “shrubs” to be planted in tight clusters, with nearly half being Carissa Hollies (255) and Lorapetulam. Close to a third of the shrub list are perennial grasses and other herbaceous flowering plants.
Landscape Plan for Farmer’s Market Parkway. Largest circles represent four residual trees, mid sized circles represent trees to be planted, and the smaller circles represent shrubs and perennial flowering plants.
(4). Cranston Engineering of Augusta conducted conceptual design and final design of the project at a cost of just over $90,000. The Conceptual Design and and Final Design have been requested.
To date, that request has yielded only one page—-the “Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan” contained in the December 2022 Permit Plan. Any updated “Tree Protection Plan” has yet to be disclosed.
(5) The “Instructions to Bidders and Special Provisions/‘” section of the bid package contains numerous standard contract administration requirements that are designed to avoid mistakes by placing equivalent responsibilities on both the contractor and the city. Both sides are to check each other throughout the process. There is no provision for the city’s Arborist or contract Arborist to assist with inspections.
Part 19 of the bid package references “Working Drawings,” and states, in part:
“Working drawings shall consist of those detail drawings which may be required for prosecution of the work, but which are not included in the Contract Drawings. Six copies of all necessary working drawings shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Engineer for review; three copies shall be returned to the Contractor unless additional copies are included in the submittal.”
Two provisions follow:
(a) Check by Contractor: The Contractor shall check all working drawings for accuracy of dimensions and details, and for conformance with Contract Drawings and Specifications before submitting working drawings to the Engineer for review. The Contractor shall indicate that working drawings have been checked by affixing an appropriate stamp or notation on the face of the working drawings. Deviations from the Plans and Specifications shall be clearly and specifically called to the Engineer’s attention in a written statement accompanying the drawings.
(b) Responsibility for Accuracy: Review by the Engineer of the Contractor’s working drawings shall not relieve the Contractor of responsibility for accuracy of dimensions and details. The Contractor shall be responsible for agreement and conformity of working drawings with the Contract Drawings and Specifications.
Item #20, “Cooperation of Contractor” states
“ The Contractor will be supplied with five (5) copies of the Drawings and Specifications. The Contractor shall have available on the work, at all times, one (1) copy of the Drawings and Specifications. He shall give the work the constant attention necessary to facilitate the progress thereof, and shall cooperate with the Engineer and other contractors in every way possible.”
Items #22 and #23 provide the requirements of inspectors
22. Authority and Duties of Inspector: Inspectors shall be authorized to inspect all work done and all materials furnished, including preparation, fabrication, and manufacture of the materials to be used. The inspector shall not be authorized to alter or waive requirements of the Drawings and Specifications. He shall call the attention of the Contractor to failure of the work and/or materials to conform to the Drawings and Specifications. He may reject materials or suspend work until questions at issue can be refereed to, and be decided by the Engineer. The presence of the Inspector shall in no way lessen the responsibility of the Contractor.
23. Inspection: The Contractor shall furnish the Engineer with every reasonable facility for ascertaining whether or not the work performed and materials used are in accordance with the requirements and intent of the Specifications and Drawings. No work shall be done or materials used without suitable supervision or inspection by the Engineer or his representative. Failure to reject defective work and materials shall neither, in any way, prevent later rejection when those defects are discovered, nor obligate the Owner to any final acceptance.
Item #25 pertains to making corrections in the case of unclear drawings:
Corrections: Should any portion of the Drawings and Specifications be obscure or in dispute, they shall be referred to the Engineer, and he shall decide as to the true meaning and intent. He shall also have the right to correct errors and omissions at any time when those corrections are necessary for the proper fulfillment of the Drawings and Specifications.
Part One in a Series of Five or More (Updated: April 30, 2023 and May 9, 2023)
Gyles Park
On August 8, 2022, Aiken City Council voted unanimously (1) to approve a Master Plan (2) for the City’s parks recommending possible divestment of five neighborhood parks north of Colleton Avenue. Four of these parks are located in the predominantly Black, working class neighborhoods surrounding the Schofield campus. They are also within the original 1834 Dexter-Pascalis survey of Aiken.
Among the five parks is Herbert Gyles Park — one of Aiken’s oldest designated parks — established in 1912 and named after Aiken’s then-mayor, Herbert E. Gyles.
Grassy, open area on the western side of Gyles Park, with Union Street to the right.
In addition to its age, Gyles Park holds special historic and cultural significance. According a 1953 Aiken Standard article, this park was designated in 1912 to serve as a park for Aiken’s Black citizens, and was rededicated to this purpose on October 26, 1953.
Gyles Park was again rededicated thirty years later in a ceremony and “rededication festival” held on July 23, 1987, as conveyed in a newspaper account — minus mention of the first forty years of its history from 1912 forward, and minus the words “Negro” and “colored.” (3)
According to the 1987 Aiken Recreation and Parks director, it had “been years” since Gyles Park — with its freshly painted slides, swings and seesaws — had been used. (4) The article did not mention how many times, if any, the slides, swings and seesaws had been re-painted and maintained over the prior three decades.
Aiken Standard artcle. October 27, 1953.
Through today’s lens, donating a park to Black people might seem a progressive move in the 1912 Jim Crow South. History, viewed out of context, is often romanticized and easily misinterpreted.
Some Context
A park located adjacent to and directly downwind of a 1912 train depot in the era of coal-fired engines was a sooty, smoky, dirty place to spend one’s time — and all the worse for its proximity to the railroad tracks, which would have made the area a uniquely dangerous place for children to play. One could surmise that the park was better suited, not so much as a park for children, but as a practical gathering place to stage the mules, carriages, and “Negro” laborers and servants appointed to the task of awaiting the comings and goings of Winter Colony northerners, Low Country southerners and their visitors who would require assistance to haul their cumbersome baggage, personages and visitors from the passenger station to the winter cottages and resort facilities.
It was the custom during that time, and still is, to orient lower class, Black and minority neighborhoods adjacent to and downwind of toxic, noxious industries, city dumps, and/or the “bottoms” of a town, and to station the upper classes at higher points on the landscape. Train tracks, interstates, rivers and other natural barriers have long served as the dividing line between classes and races.
Recall that it was only nine years ago, in 2014, when the City of Aiken was making plans to build the long-requested, long-deferred northside park atop the old City dump at the edge of the Schofield neighborhood. The City had, in fact, already spent the prior ten years, since 2004, (5) alternately dragging its heels and working behind the scenes with landscape architects (6) and others to bring this plan to fruition.
This, after kicking the can down the road since the 1980s on requests to improve and upgrade recreation facilities on Aiken’s northside, while spending many millions on Aiken’s southside facilities. This, after subjecting generations of northside residents from the 1920s into the late 1970s to the need to coordinate their outdoor hours and laundry days to avoid the stench of burning and smoldering garbage, trash, yard waste, old furniture, dead animals, etc. at the City dump.
Below: Two screenshots from the Aiken City Council meeting minutes dated, March 9, 1970, regarding a 500-signature petition brought before Council by northside residents in complaint of the landfill.
The Winds of Change
A 1951 Aiken Standard article spoke of the Herbert Gyles Park: “A memorial to the good citizenship of Mr. Gyles is the Herbert Gyles park at the Southern Railway passenger station.”
When the Herbert Gyles Park was rededicated in 1953, circumstances were different from 1912 or even 1951. For one thing, the passenger train was no longer in service. For another, Jim Crow was on its last legs. Court cases were pushing desegregation on every front. Southern leadership, feeling the winds of change bearing down upon them, went into overdrive creating “separate but equal” spaces and facilities to neutralize accusations of inequality and to preempt efforts to desegregate . As if to reinforce this newfangled equality, the word, “Negro” was prominently displayed in the newspaper announcements of these separate-but-equal facilities.
The rededicated Herbert Gyles Park of 1953 was appointed with “the most modern of equipment,” including two six-seat swings, a six-board seesaw, a sandbox, wading pool, merry-go-round, two slides, a horseshoe court, and two picnic tables. In the publicity surrounding this event, the park was unofficially redubbed as Gyles Negro Recreation Park, Gyles Park Negro Playground, Gyles Park Playground for Negro Children, the Negro Park, and so on.
Enter the Bomb Plant
The much anticipated influx of bomb plant employees in 1953 only hastened the “separate but equal” impetus. Swimming pool access was a particularly prickly issue among segregationists at that time. Aiken already had at least three pools where White people could swim — the City pool on Newberry Street; the public swimming pool at “The Bath Club” on the Hofmann estate on Laurens Street; and the Fermata pool, which, by 1953, had been established as a Whites-only social club. There were no swimming pools for Aiken’s Black residents.
In addition to the swimming pools were numerous Whites-only parks, ponds and lakes including Gregg Park, Clearwater Park, Vaucluse Pond, Aiken State Park, Johnson’s Lake, Scott’s Lake, and Richardson’s Lake. There were also numerous unofficial swimming holes in ponds, clay pits and streams throughout the county which enjoyed de facto segregation, as it was simply understood that Black people didn’t step foot into certain areas.
During 1951-1953, with tens of thousands of construction workers, DuPont employees and their families arriving to town, the winds of change bore down harder, still. The fact that the bomb plant was a federal facility only made the efforts to preserve Jim Crow all the more challenging, as federal laws — toothless as they were — still required creative effort to skirt.
Two New Pools for Aiken
In March 1954, the City pool on Newberry Street was filled in and plans made to build a new City pool for White people. But first, in July 1954, the City began construction on the “Aiken Negro Pool” later to be named Smith Hazel Pool
By autumn 1954, the pool was finished, and local leaders could now boast that — between Eustis Park, the Smith Hazel pool and the recently-equipped Gyles Park — Aiken now had “equal” recreation facilities for all of its citizens.
Aiken Standard. August 12, 1954.
By year’s end, the construction of the pool at the circa 1897 Eustis Park complex was well under way to add a swimming pool to the existing tennis courts, baseball diamond, football field, and picnic grounds under the pines. A vibrant, community fundraising campaign was added to the mix to build a recreation center and teen canteen with a snack bar, the latter of which was completed in 1956. The pool officially opened in May 1955. Designed by Paddock of California, it was described as containing “the most modern equipment available” (7) including underwater lights, state-of-the-art filtration and an underwater vacuum. It also featured a second pool, a wading pool, for the younger set.
The completed Eustis Park facility enabled a full menu of recreation offerings for Aiken youth and adults — tennis lessons, baseball and softball games, swimming lessons, swim meets, concerts, dances, horse shows and festivals, plus dance lessons, and arts, crafts and ceramics classes, summer day camps and other special programs for teens and children.
The Smith Hazel pool site offered a smaller menu of extra activities and events, mostly seasonal parties, which were advertised as “weather permitting,” since there wasn’t a building to accommodate them. In 1963, and only after years of public calls for an activity center for Aiken’s Black residents, the Smith Hazel Recreation Center was built.
Swimming Lessons
Local Red Cross water safety classes had been held at the segregated Aiken State Park since the late 1930s. The influx of DuPont workers and their families in 1953 drove a campaign to offer classes throughout the county. (8). In 1953, classes were offered at eight of the Whites-only swimming venues. No options were offered to Black people. The situation was the same in the summer of1954, except that the Red Cross offered swimming lessons for Aiken’s Black residents over at the Jones Pool in Augusta, Georgia. (9)
In the summer of 1955 Red Cross classes were offered at the Smith Hazel Pool. In the summer of 1956, they were again offered at Smith Hazel, as well as “at a pond to be selected in a few days.” Swimming lessons were available for White people at numerous sites throughout Aiken County, including Aiken State Park, Johnson’s Lake, Scott’s Lake, Eustis Park, Fermata Club, Gem Lake, Double Springs, Gregg Park, Panic Pond, Gregory Lake, and the LBC recreation pool. (10)
The “separate but equal” artifice was too expensive and impractical to erect with golf courses, public beaches and state parks. The response, then, was to simply close them down. Edisto Beach State Park, for instance, closed in 1956 in response to a lawsuit challenging its segregation — and it remained closed for ten years.
The SC park system had twenty-six parks (11) at that time:
20 were segregated, Whites-only parks
3 were segregated, Blacks-only parks — Pleasant Ridge, Campbell’s Pond, and Mill Creek.
3 parks provided separate-use areas for Blacks and Whites — Lake Greenwood, Hunting Island, and Huntington Beach.
The 1067-acre Aiken State Park was a segregated, Whites-only park that was built by both White and Black Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) workers during 1934-1936. Oral stories tell of the grueling labor involved with hand-digging Fish Lake (see modern-day photo of Fish Lake at top of article). During the 1950s, the park, which is situated along the South fork of the Edisto River, featured several ponds, a spring-fed lake, and several artesian wells. Original amenities included cabins for overnight stays, swimming facilities, a bath house, a refreshment stand, boating, fishing, nature trails, and picnic grounds with tables, grills and barbecue pits. This grew to include a campground and baseball field. (12)
In 1963 — and, again, in response to a suit challenging South Carolina’s segregated state park system — the SC Forestry Commission, which oversaw the parks, closed down the entire park system, including Aiken State Park. They remained closed until 1966.
It was a similar story on municipal golf courses of that era, which were in the midst of a post-WWII boom. New courses were built, and old courses were improved to meet the demand. Among the golfers heading to greens across America were Black veterans, who’d enjoyed playing golf on courses overseas during the war, and found themselves barred from entering golf courses at home. Numerous lawsuits were brought, followed by numerous court-ordered, federal mandates for desegregation of municipal golf courses. Such lawsuits were not new, as golf courses had been on the forefront of desegregation lawsuits for decades.
Some cities circumvented court orders by leasing their municipal courses to private interests for as little as $1 per year. Others sold their their grounds to private interests. Still others filled in the holes with cement and outright closed the courses.
In 1959, Aiken City Council voted unanimously to sell the Aiken Municipal Golf course to a private interest. The City was nearing its 20 year agreement to operate the property as a municipal golf course, anyway, and, according to Council’s resolution, the course had operated at a loss for the past few years and become a burden on taxpayers. (13)
The 107-acre course, which had been “reasonably valued at some $100,000” fifteen years earlier in an ordinance signed by Mayor Wyman in 1944, (14) sold for $23,150. The sale price was about the cost of two modest, 3-bedroom ranch houses in 1959 Aiken. The buyer agreed to a number of restrictive clauses. (See clipping #1 in footnotes). The course was renamed Highland Park Country Club and, in 1960, a members-only swimming pool was added to the facility.
Thirty years later, in 1990, the Augusta National invited its first Black member, an event that made front page news in the NYT Sports Pages. (15) Other area golf clubs held similarly strict membership policies, although public discussion of such matters is considered indelicate.
__________________
UPDATE May 9, 2023: Updated to add two screenshots from the Aiken City Council meeting minutes, dated March 9, 1970, regarding a 500-signature petition brought before Council by northside residents in complaint of the landfill.
April 30, 2023: An earlier version of this article suggested that the circa 1912 Gyles Park might be Aiken’s oldest Park. That distinction could arguably be said to belong to the circa 1897 Eustis Park, donated to the city by Miss Celestine Eustis, and so-named in recognition of her efforts to preserve Aiken’s trees and forests. Eustis Park served Aiken recreation for many decades, first as a bicycle park, then a multi-faceted recreation complex that featured a horse park, football stadium, baseball park, tennis courts, picnic grounds and more. Eustis Park’s original 115 acres was whittled down over the years — first by the 47 acre, turn-of-the-century Park in the Pines resort hotel, (which burned in 1913), then, over the next 40 years, to house various county government functions, including hospital grounds, a health department, and public school system facilities, which included the Eustis Park schools. By 1965, according to then-Mayor Odell Weeks, the Eustis Park recreational complex had been reduced to less than 10 acres, a number that served to justify the City’s 1965 purchase of the Virginia Acres subdivision for development into a park on the southside. Three years later, the City received a federal grand to develop the recently demolished Virginia Acres subdivision into a park. Simultaneous to this, the City began negotiations with the Aiken County Hospital Board of Trustees to sell the Eustis Park recreational complex in its entirety. (The hospital had plans at that time, in 1971, to either build a new hospital on University Parkway, or to expand into the Eustis Park grounds). Here, it must be said that discussions on this sale occurred against an extremely contentious backdrop of local tension over integration in schools, housing and public places. Negotiations on the sale commenced from 1968 until 1972 to include talk of the “friendly condemnation suit” that would be necessary for the hospital to acquire the city-owned Eustis Park property, since the property had been given to the City in trust to be used as a recreational facility. In 1971, the City announced plans to build a “community park” on the Eustis Park public school property (not to be confused with the Eustis Park recreational complex) and to also build, “one of the most modern recreational facilities in the state” on the Virginia Acres property on the southside. The friendly condemnation suit was filed in the spring of 1972. In 2019, a senior-youth center was built aside the Eustis Park community park property and named the Lessie B. Price Aiken Senior and Youth Center in honor of the long-serving Councilwoman. The article has been updated to reflect this history.
The above histories are incomplete, at best. The recording of racial histories, like so much history, has traditionally been piecemeal and only brought together, piece-by-piece and perspective by perspective, over time. I welcome further contributions to the history I’ve presented here. ____________________
This series is written in memory of my father, Arthur H. Dexter. His files on these histories led me to further research and to complete some of the stories he started, but didn’t have opportunity to finish. My father would have been 100 years old today.
(12) “Aiken State Park is Fine for Outings” Aiken Standard. June 20, 1947.
(13) “Golf Course Sold to Charlotte Pro.” Aiken Standard. February 24, 1959. (See clipping #1 below)
(14) “Aiken Golf Club Ordinance.” Aiken Standard. September 6, 1944. (See clipping #2 below)
(15) Diaz, Jaime. “Augusta National Admits First Black Member.” New York Times. September 11, 1990.
Restrictive clauses included with 1959 sale of the Aiken Municipal Golf courseExcerpt from the 1944 ordinance on the Aiken Golf Club, signed by Mayor Wyman.
Aiken County One of Three Beneficiaries of Dominion Energy’s V.C. Summer Plant Tax Settlement
by Don Moniak
December 18, 2022
A second state park should be opening in Aiken County in 2023 when South Carolina State Parks officially adds the former 192-acre, South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCEG) employee recreation area known as Misty Lake to its park system. South Carolina Director of State Parks Paul McCormack confirmed Friday in a telephone interview that the state closed on the Dominion Energy property this past Wednesday, December 14th. Dominion is scheduled to hand over the keys right after the New Year.
The agency intends to have the park open for public use later in 2023, after finishing the necessary facilities work; but no opening date goal is set. Since the state park system is self-funded, there will be user fees, but those remain to be determined. As a point of comparison, Aiken State Park currently charges $3 per adult and $1 per day for children.
A facility inspection and a Phase I Environmental Assessment were completed prior to closing to ensure the state was not inheriting any liabilities, such as a faulty dam. The park is tentatively named “Misty Lake State Park,” but the decision is not final.
Misty Lake is one of three new state park properties obtained as part of a settlement on unpaid sales taxes from the failed VC Summer Nuclear Power Plant expansion. The $9 billion dollar fiasco ultimately led to convictions of high level officials, and Dominion Energy acquiring the largest private utility in South Carolina, SCANA energy.
The land exchange was first reported a year ago by the Post and Courier of Charleston and the Associated Press. The other two new parks are in other relatively affluent settings—Lexington and Georgetown Counties—which SCEG also selected for employee parks and executive retreats.
Situated about halfway between uptown Graniteville and Belvedere, Misty Lake is in the midst of the fastest growing portion of Aiken County where large private landholdings are in demand. “ In the past eighteen months developers purchased two other other large land holdings near Misty Lake:
Greenville based RIdge Road Holdings, LLC purchased a thousand acre property less than one mile to the north for $6 million in 2022.
Beazly Development Company of Evans purchased a two hundred acre property 3.5 miles to the northeast in 2021.
Instead of Dominion probably selling these assets to a developer to pay off part of its large acquisition debt, the property will now serve as a quiet public park to an area presently lacking in open, public space.
Approximate boundaries of Misty Lake State Park
The property is composed of three parcels:
1280 Ascauga Lake Road; a 35-acre parcel with twenty eight year old, 1450 square foot former clubhouse adjacent to a seven acre pond and surrounded by 28 acres of loblolly pine dominated forest.
A 12.5-acre undeveloped tract on the west side of the pond that is also dominated by mature loblolly pine.
A 145-acre tract north of the pond stretching to I-20, presently classified as mostly ag-timber land, and a mix of loblolly pine timber production plantations interspersed with hardwood bottoms.
Former clubhouse and probable future park headquarters. Photo from Aiken County Tax Assessor.
