Category Archives: Trees and Deforestation

August 2025, Editorials, Over-development, Trees and Deforestation

Reflections on a Walk in the Woods

3 Comments

By Christopher Hall
August 31, 2025

Buck was little more than a year old in 2007 and only in his forever home for about 3 months when he and I went exploring in Hitchcock Woods. I had been to the woods on several occasions, mostly taking that familiar path from the main entrance at South Boundary, Devil’s Backbone, to the Horse Show Ring. We walked and walked, one path leading to another.

After a while, I noticed the sun was starting to set. I decided it was time to head back. It was then that I also discovered that we were lost. Did I bring a map? No! Why would I need a map?! After all, this was ‘just’ Hitchcock Woods! I tried to retrace our steps and was moving along quickly when we crossed paths with someone. Directions were shared, and the fellow admirer of the woods went his way, while Buck and I went ours, trying to find our way out. It didn’t take long before I  realized that those well-intended directions just didn’t make sense.

All the while, the sun was slowly sinking off in the distance. I stopped. I felt like I wasn’t getting anywhere fast. Well, I was moving fast but no closer to where the hike started. The sky around me in those woods grew darker, and I made a decision: the woods aren’t that big, and if I headed in one direction long enough, I’d find my way out. With that in mind, I looked up towards the westward-setting sun, then set my course and started making tracks towards the south.

I found myself at the Palmetto Golf Course. Considering the day of the week and time of day, I felt the odds were slim of running across anyone, so I took the shortcut across the course. Getting to the other side, I reached a chainlink fence. I lifted Buck on my shoulder, climbed to the top of the fence, dropped him over on the other side and hurled myself over too. There on Whiskey Road, we walked along the sidewalk until arriving back at dirt lot at South Boundary. The sun had set, the stars were starting to shine, and Buck and I had our first of many adventures together.

_________

Recently, I started feeling my levels of stress rising and rising. It had been a while since I’d paddled or gone hiking anywhere, and there’s no better cure for stress than time spent outdoors. With that in mind, after work one day, I made a quick stop by the store, then headed to Hitchcock Woods at the Stable on the Woods entrance, which is located off of Dibble Road. With a quick change of clothes, I pulled on my boots and started down Cathedral Aisle. As I neared Black Gum Pond, I heard a Barred Owl in the distance. it wasn’t long before I felt that shift inside. I slowly started to unwind. Walking along, I cut off on the trail right before Black Gum Pond and started the slow climb uphill, continuing on until I reached High Point Line. In the back of my mind, I wanted to put in an hour’s hike, and I didn’t care what trails I took.

I’ve spent a lot of time in the woods over the years since that early adventure with Buck. Section by section, I learned the main routes that ran through the woods, north to south, and east to west. My general mode when I start another walk is to jump right in and follow whatever path seems to pull me in. I intend to get lost. The key, though, is that now I take a map — an important tool, since not every trail connecting the named trails has a name. I might head out on Coker Springs Road, but after heading down the main trail, I’ll take a left or a right, going deeper into areas with which I’m unfamiliar. Those unnamed, connector trails have the potential to make the day interesting.

Hiking along High Point Line, I cut across on another path and after a while, I noticed someone walking towards me. About that time, a light rain started to fall. We exchanged greetings and both agreed that the rain was a welcome event on this hot humid evening. She continued on her way and I on mine. The rain started falling harder, and I continued on my way, veering to the right on a path that seemed to offer some tree cover. As the rain came down, I looked over my shoulder and could see the pine trees on a slight incline with the sun shining through. The rain coming down made it a magical scene.

Walking along, I pulled out the map, but the rain made it difficult to read. I knew where I wanted to land so that I could connect back to Cathedral Aisle, and I had a sense of how long it would take to circle around to the start. I pulled out my phone to look at the time and noticed a missed call. Standing under some trees, with the rain falling down on me and all around, my friend and I talked about our days. I mentioned I was hiking in the woods with the intention of diverting from weights and gym workouts to connect with the outdoors for a while. My spirit needed it. They agreed. We said goodbye and I continued on. It wasn’t long before the trail I was on connected with another, and I recognized where I was – the Barton’s Pond Bridge, just as I planned.

The rain had stopped, and I started down Cathedral Aisle towards the parking lot and my car. In between the tall trees, the sun shone down, lighting everything it touched with a muted glow. Looking off into the trees, I stopped. Looking back between the trees, a doe was standing there frozen in motion. We stared at each other for a couple minutes, before she decided two’s a crowd. Off, deeper into the woods she went. I continued on, passing by Black Gum Pond. It wasn’t long before I was back in the parking lot. Drenched with both rain and sweat, I peeled out of my shirt and boots, then slipped on a t-shirt and Chacos. It’s handy to have some things in the car, just in case.

What strikes me and, yet, is not all surprising is how those things that were weighing on my mind as I went into the woods, somehow lifted out of my head and dissipated along those trails. While it may seem like some kind of mystery, science has confirmed what many of us knew for many years: time spent in nature is good for our physical and mental health. 

Photographs by Wren Dexter..

Reflecting on this, I am taken back to the early days of the pandemic. I was an essential worker. When everyone was told to stay home, I found myself driving along roads where no other cars were seen. All along these roads, I would see acre after acre of clear cutting of trees. On these same roads I saw deer, raccoons, dogs and other animals, whose lives had been lost by the thud of a bumper. It was 2020 and I knew our area was going to explode in growth. During this time, I thought about our county commissioners. I thought about what we might talk about if we were to drive around the county. Maybe we’d talk about favorite foods or restaurants in the area. Or maybe we’d talk about music. Food and music may not save the world, but in a time when people can’t seem to agree on much, maybe we could find common grounds on these simple things.

I might also ask about their favorite places in Aiken County, and maybe we’d drive by there. After a while, I’d talk about what the natural world means to me; what I’ve learned from it over the years, and how it’s given me solace at times of grief. I’d talk about the damage to our communities when our natural world is only viewed as a commodity to be used up. Some of the bedrock environmental policies, supported and passed by Republicans and Democrats alike, have been weakened over the years through industry-supported attacks, and what we lose now can’t be undone. 

What makes a place a great place to live? Hands down, it’s the trees, the rivers and lakes, and access to these special places that pulls people in. It’s about quality of life and recognizing that if we don’t protect these places, given all the ways they benefit us, who would we be?

Epilogue

It’s a little after 5 PM on Friday and I’m at a stop light on Powderhouse Road. As I look to the left and to the right on Whiskey Road, there’s a line of cars as far as I can see. Traffic is also lined up behind me on Powderhouse. It’s not unusual. And what these long lines of cars have to do with the clearcutting of trees is everything. It’s called sprawl.

When a developer proposes a project, they are supposed to submit a traffic study that looks at trips per day. Any development on or near Whiskey Road (or other high-volume roads) would automatically trigger a study. Next, the city engineer would review the study with a lens on current traffic levels and make recommendations. The review would then go to the planning commission and city council, who would then make a decision based on the study and recommendations from the city engineer. On a daily basis, I see evidence that whatever traffic studies were completed, and whatever recommendations were made by the city engineer, must have been ignored. How else could our roads be so far beyond capacity?  There are solutions to this, and it’s called citizen involvement.

With the onset of explosive growth in the Central Savannah River Area, why are there few opportunities for citizens to weigh in on impacts to the places we call home? The City of Aiken has an Energy & Environment committee with two openings that have gone unfilled for a long time. There’s also a Citizen’s Advisory Committee that’s part of the Augusta Regional Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization (ARTS MPO). The last I knew, there was no chair for the committee and no non-elected official on that committee. The whole purpose of the citizen’s advisory committee, which services Richmond and Aiken Counties, as well as part of Columbia and Edgefield Counties, is to advise on transportation planning across the CSRA. And how transportation planning takes place has everything to do with the land. 

With the total population of over half-a-million people in Aiken, Richmond, and Columbia Counties, there are no other citizen committees to advocate for our natural resources in this area. This has to change.

_________________

ABOVE: Whiskey Road gridlock on the southside. BELOW: Another longleaf pine forest clear-cut in 2024 on hillside acreage above Bridge Creek to expand the area subdivisions over to Trollelline Road, a road with already-existing issues of stormwater runoff, erosion and hazardous traffic conditions in the wake of growth and new developments over the past decade.

August 2024, City Government, City Parks and Recreation, Development Issues, Editorials, Farmers Market - Williamsburg St Project, Trees and Deforestation

The “Atrocious” Farmers Market Project, Revisited

5 Comments

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)

Figure 2: Reaction of one city employee to public outrage at the near-total removal of the stand of trees surrounding Farmers Market.

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).

Figure 3: Memorandum from City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh to five of his department heads, representing Economic Development (Tim O’Briant), Planning (Marya Moultrie), Engineering and Utilities (Michael Przbylowicz), Public Works (Lex Kirkland), and Parks, Recreation, and Tourism (Jessica Cambpbell). Documents obtained via FOIA show that, in the aftermath of the “atrocious” event, there was very little internal finger-pointing, a good deal of blame avoidance, and a near absence of genuine root cause analysis-=-one that would have found that the internal review process was not the problem, the problem was the complete lack of external review in the form of public review and input of the Farmers Market project—and to a similar extent all city projects.


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.

City Parks and Recreation, February 2024, Trees and Deforestation

Smith Hazel Park: When Public Consensus Isn’t

3 Comments

Public consensus. That’s the official reason given by City of Aiken for the transformation of the Smith Hazel Park project from the Cranston plan of October 2022 — which simply intended to replace a few aging amenities and repave the walking trail, per the term of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LCWF) grant funding the project — to the radical plan of August 2023 that necessitates the destruction of 68 trees and the services of earth moving equipment that will fundamentally change the appearance, the environment, the character and nature of the park. Also added in August 2023 are expensive fixes to correct the stormwater issues created by this plan. A closer look at the ingredients of that consensus raises questions.

In a phone call on January 30, 2024, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh stated that it was public consensus that drove the changes in the Cranston Engineering plan between October 2022 and August 2023. A week earlier, Mr Bedenaugh erroneously stated to the local newspaper that there had been “several public meetings to discuss the tree removal, including a public hearing in September 2023.”

There have been no public meetings to discuss tree removal, nor has there been a single public hearing, a fact documented in the two recent articles, The Smith Hazel Story: What We Know and What Public Hearing?

January 12-22, 2024

City offices repeatedly ignored and/or gave vague, non-answers to requests for information on the trees from September to January. The City finally divulged the information on the trees on January 12, 2024, albeit not in the local newspaper where the public might see it. A plat peppered with sixty-eight red Xs was sent via email to Schofield Community Association President, Bill McGhee, who had been asking for months for this information. The news sent a shock through the community.

The City’s position couldn’t have been more clear. As stated on the front page of the January 26, 2024 Aiken Standard: “The city of Aiken doesn’t intend to pause plans to make long-awaited upgrades to the Smith-Hazel Recreation Center, despite a community group and city board asking for a brief stoppage to have more public input on the project.”

More public input, says the newspaper? At what point between the drying of the ink on the updated August 31, 2023 Cranston plan and today has there a single public hearing to inform the public about updates to the plan — with specific regard to the trees and the extensive land grading necessitated by this plan — and to gather public input on these updates?

The City board referenced in that same Aiken Standard article was the Recreation Commission, which voted unanimously in its January 16, 2024 meeting to recommend pausing the project so that a public hearing could be held to allow for public input. [Note: This author was there, spoke at that January 16 Recreation Commmission meeting, and stands by the language “public hearing” contained in this statement]. Another motion was made by the Recreation Commission chair recommending that ribbons be placed to mark the trees slated for removal.

The following Monday, January 22, discussion of the Smith Hazel plan was not on the City Council’s regular meeting agenda, so when Commission member John Pettigrew appeared before Council as both a resident and a Recreation Commission member to present the recommendation to Council, it had to be made during the non-agenda comment period. Mr .Pettigrew was abruptly cut off at the 3:30 mark by Mayor Teddy Milner.



ABOVE: Recreation Commission member John Pettigrew speaking before City Council on January 22, 2024.

February 3-10, 2024

As if there were any doubt left of the City’s intent to continue scuttling the process of a public hearing and gathering public consensus, the events of February 3-10 cleared that up. In response to a flood of citizen letters to City Council and the City Manager, requesting a pause and public hearing, City officials responded by announcing an ad hoc public meeting to be held on Saturday morning, February 10 at the Smith Hazel Park to allow the public to give “input.” During the days leading up to February 10 meeting in the park, City officials repeatedly stated in local media that the project would proceed as planned.

To date we are nonetheless to believe that the public consensus that compelled the Cranston August 2023 plan was so strong, there was simply no need for a public hearing. And with the City looking at a tight May deadline, there was no time for a frivolous pause to appease a bunch of tree huggers.

When asked for evidence of this public consensus, Mr. Bedenbaugh provided the minutes from several Recreation Commission meetings and Senior Commission meetings. These minutes contained mention of official updates on the project, but no documented reciprocal public discussion, nor mention of trees. Mr. Bedenbaugh also provided a wish list that had been gathered from 54 attendees of public meetings in December 2022 at the Smith Hazel Recreation Center. This is, to date, the sole source of public input on the Smith Hazel project, so it bears special scrutiny.

December 8, 2022

Parks, Recreation and Tourism Director, Jessica Campbell presented a talk on three display boards at the head of the room featuring concept drawings by Cranston concept plan of October 2022. The attendees were not asked for input on the concept plan, as this was presumably a done deal, per the terms of the LWCF grant. The public had been brought to vote on what they might like to see in the park years down the road.

Photo of the October 2022 Cranston concept plan taken at the meeting.

Toward this end, there were two other two display board at the front of the room marked Option A and Option B. These contained potential amenities the City might entertain in the coming years, after the current LWCF-funded project was completed. Neither the concept plan nor Ms. Campbell’s presentation contained mention of destroying many dozens of trees, bulldozing the landscape, moving the playground from one side of the park to the other, adding toxic artificial turf, or [reducing the size of the park space by] adding a [fenced retention] pond as large as the park’s existing swimming pool.

Options A and B from a December 2022 meeting.

Again, no input was sought on the October 2022 Cranston concept plan or any aspect of the LWCF-funded project. Only on potential future projects, as drawn up in Options A and B. Attendees were provided cards with which to vote their preferences for Option A or Option B. Extra space was included on the back of the cards to customize their wishes. The few attendees who offered verbal input were told to write it on the card. Thirty-five people voted for Option B; nineteen people voted for Option A.

No one was told of the tradeoffs — the loss of trees and landscape —which are every bit as significant and deserving of consensus as any pickleball court [or hammock garden] and would have no doubt elicited response from these attendees and the larger community.

Subsequent public meetings over the following 9 months provided updates on the interior work and projected start dates. There were no additional opportunities for actionable input. In fact, according to the minutes of the January 24, 2023 Senior Commission meeting, input was discussed in the past tense, as something already given. Unless other information is forthcoming from the City, the 54 citizens who filled out the December 2022 cards were the sole source of what the City claims is a public consensus for the design decision put to ink in the August 2023 Cranston plan.

The Public Consensus

According to the 54 citizens who wrote comments on the cards, the consensus is that Smith Hazel Park needs outdoor restrooms and more parking. There was little to no demand for additional amenities.

Need outdoor restrooms: 22
Need more parking: 9
Additional basketball courts: 2
Fewer basketball courts: 8
Fewer or no pickleball courts: 14
More pickleball courts: 3
No hammock garden: 13
Asphalt walking trail: 3
Enlarge pool: 2
Gravel walking trail; 1
Redesign walking trail to go around the trees. Keep the trees: 1
Bike station with pump to park bikes: 1
More shelter: 1
More green space: 1
Labyrinth: 1

Unless there is other information yet to be released, the above wish list constitutes the evidence of the public consensus that drove the updated Cranston plan of August 2023 plan that is before us today and at the source of great public debate and controversy.

There was no consensus to add pickleball courts, but yet they appear on the updated August 2023 plan. There was zero mention of outdoor exercise equipment, yet the amenity appears on the August 2023 plan. There was no consensus for an additional basketball court, yet one appears on the August plan.

The updated Cranston plan, August 31, 2023

Interestingly, the playground in the August plan was moved to other side of the park, necessitating the destruction of at least three grand trees and number of significant trees, including two of the oldest Longleaf Pines in the City of Aiken.

The Playground

The playground was never actually mentioned in the wish list. Attendees [this author-attendee included] likely assumed the playground would remain in place, as shown in the October 2022 Cranston Concept Plan, and in Options A and B, and as described by Jessica Campbell in her presentation, with the old equipment simply being replaced with new.

Above: The existing playground at Smith Hazel. Below: The new playground equipment planned for Smith Hazel

A public hearing in the wake of the August 31, 2023 Cranston plan would have given the public opportunity to consider the trade-offs — the loss of trees, the destruction of landscape, the addition of potentially toxic artificial turf for the children’s playground, the paving of the park with impermeable surfaces that would require elaborate stormwater treatment systems and a large retaining pond rivaling the size of the park’s existing swimming pool.

Reciprocal discussion and a shared spirit of compromise and community could have reached a genuine public consensus. A timely public hearing would have given Cranston the tools necessary to go back to the drawing board and get it right in plenty of time to make the deadline for an early 2024 start.

We may never know what stood in the way of that possibility. But, then again, we may.

____________________

Development Issues, Editorials, February 2024, Trees and Deforestation

Aiken Tree Math 506-230=494

3 Comments

By Kelly Cornelius
February 9, 2024

The City of Aiken has proposed destroying nearly half of the tree canopy at Smith Hazel Park, and they appear to be using the same formula that would apply to developers on a private project. Shouldn’t a public project in a city park in “Tree City” be held to a higher standard?

Imagine having $506 in the bank and heading out on the town in Aiken and spending $230 of that and still having $494 left in the bank! That’s the math formula City officials have used for the destruction of the Smith-Hazel trees. Let’s break it down.

The above document and its curious tree match were included in the agenda package for the Sept 11th 2023 Workshop for the Smith-Hazel plan.

According to the “Existing Conditions and Tree Replacement Calculations” document, above, the trees in the park total 506 inches of DBH or Diameter at Breast Height (393 +113 =506). The city proposes to destroy 230 inches (nearly half) leaving 276 inches, and here is where the city’s math gets sketchy, as it appears that they give themselves double credit for 247 of the 276 remaining inches simply because those remaining inches come from an “approved list” (see line B above).

The bottom line is by replacing ZERO trees they still give themselves a 494 inch tree-save credit, when they actually would destroy 230 inches.

Who in the city thought this tree math was appropriate? I’ll take Developer Math for 500 Alex. Surprisingly, this formula is actually in one of the city’s tree ordinances:

The cumulative caliper of replacement trees shall at least equal the cumulative DBH of the Grand and Significant Trees removed except that the DBH of any Grand or Significant Trees on the Approved Tree List saved or approved trees newly planted may count as double replacement inches under this provision.

As the citizens of Aiken fight to protect one of her greatest assets, the trees, this formula certainly deserves questioning. I called Cara Specht, pictured below, who is listed as an Urban Forester with the South Carolina Forestry Commission to see if she could help shed light on this math formula. She returned my call and was extremely helpful. She was one of the few professionals I have spoken with about who was willing to go on the record. She was not, however, familiar with the current formula being used.

She was also kind enough to send the forestry document listing the benefits of urban trees, and this one in particular should be reviewed by officials regarding the current plan to pave a significant portion of Smith-Hazel and put in a retention pond.

You can see the full document here and a link to their website here.

I also contacted Aaron Campbell, who is listed as the city’s Arborist/Horticulturist, via this form on the city’s website for an explanation of this formula and to see if this double credit formula is a standard practice and if the formula even has a name. At the time of this writing, he has not responded. A FOIA request has been submitted for “Any and all reports on the trees at Smith-Hazel Park from December 2022 -present from city arborist Aaron Campbell.”

This is not the first time citizens have questioned the city’s tree standards in recent months. From the 10/23/2023 minutes:

“Don Moniak stated it was admirable that the City of Aiken has a Tree Preservation Ordinance which dates back to 2005. The Tree Preservation Ordinance focuses on grand trees and not forest canopy. That is an unsustainable approach because large trees do get old and decay. As a result, they are labeled as nuisance trees or hazard trees, and they get cut down. If you don’t replace them, you end up with no forest at all. He suggested that at some time that Council revisit that ordinance. He also noted that the formula for determining how many trees stay is very confusing, and it does not resemble anything that is taught in any forestry school in America. He pointed out that forest canopy is what is really important because that is essential to any stormwater management process.”

While Aiken tree math is sketchy, one thing is becoming very clear, and that is that Aiken officials have some work to do when it comes to Aiken’s biggest assets, her trees. Citizens are calling for a public hearing for Smith-Hazel project. Process is important because what happens to one city-owned tree can happen to any of them. There appears to be no established process or specific protections to city-owned trees on public parcels over privately-owned trees. Recent mistakes resulting in the absolute butchering of the Farmer’s Market trees, and now a proposed leveling of 68 trees, have many of us wondering what could Tree City officials be thinking?

The need for a Tree Advisory Board as recommended by Tree City standards is becoming more and more apparent, as is the need for separate ordinances regarding city-owned trees vs developer ordinances for a private project.

Editorials, February 2024, Trees and Deforestation

Is Aiken Living Up to It’s Tree City Title?

10 Comments

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.