References: #The Post and Courier #ABC News 4
It's a deal: Land sale aims to buffer, protect Angel Oak Park
Update September 15: Charleston City Council has given final approval for the deal to buy the 6.5 acres at a reduced price of $339,000.
Update September 7: If you've been skeptical of the need for the purchase, know that Charleston Mayor Joe Riley has penned a piece in defense of it; Take a read over here.
Update August 17: Just days after the Finance Committee said no thanks to the half-million dollar deal to "buffer" the Angel Oak park with 6.5 acres to the land, the full county council approved it.
Still, it hasn't ended debate about whether the land buy will really protect the tree —I'll point you to The Post and Courier's report.
Update August 12: Charleston County Council's Finance Committee has refused to pass the deal to buy the land.
The deal that would have bought 6.5 acres of land to "buffer" the historic Angel Oak became wrapped in criticism that too many of the land buys proposed with the county's half-cent sales tax would go to the "rich."
The Post and Courier has a solid rundown on what's up (read it here.)
Update March 22: The City of Charleston is planning to protect Angel Oak Park by acquiring 6.5 acres surrounding the city's 2-acre park, but the council's Real Estate Committee feels the $518,000 asking price is too high.
The Post and Courier reports that the council voted 3-2 to have a fresh appraisal of the land conducted, and took the land deal off tonight's council agenda.
For more on the continuing conservation efforts, click here.
First reporting: In the ongoing battle to develop land surround the centuries-old Angel Oak, a developer has filed a permit request to fill in several acres of wetlands which have recently come under federal protection.
You can read more about this latest turn in the debate over at The Post and Courier or watch about it in the video report at ABC News 4.
Below is the schematic of how the proposed development (in blue) would interact with the surrounding area (black) and the wetlands (A, B, C.) The Angel Oak itself in the box at bottom labeled "City of Charleston." You can learn more about the proposal in the full application.
To catch up on the saga check out our Angel Oak topic page.
Comment and read more
our topic pages and automatically found related coverage.
13 Jul 2010 8:24 am.
I should first identify myself - I am a consultant who represets the interests of landowners, organizations both public and private - in coordinations with the very agencies mentioned in this article and TV news report. The site design shown in the joint public notice appears like many that I have helped plan before, many of which have been approved, and a few which ended up being changed. This project may be impacting a large amount of wetlands but most of the news reading public don't understand that quantity/quality of wetlands are not the issue here (when it should be). The story is focused on a tree. I have roamed many of the woods of the lowcountry and found at least two live oaks which could exceed the DBH of the Angel Oak.
I am neutral on the issue of the Angel Oak devlopment as a project, the wetlands fill (in the context of the site) appears a little more than minimal, but the USACE's job is to consider all reasonable requests, and this is one that apears reasonable. Many of the opposing comments are valid (but mostly in the area of the city officials having a conflict of interest). I think some of the people in the CCL and other environmental groups forget that most humans cannot afford to live on a big spread on wadmalaw island stocked with organic foods in an eco fridge, while railing against all development for those new people making the average income near the daily commute along Maybank Hwy.
Lets get real, if you shop, work, play, live or visit any place which was built in the last 60 years on a regular basis (without putting up a fight), then you are a contributor to the sprawl that is now ever present around our cities. Every town center, shopping mall and other area designated as comsumption central seem to be mobbed on a daily basis once constructed, and I have even seen a few "Support Coastal Concservation League" stickers on some of the volvos, suburbans and BMW's parked there.
So I can certainly empathise with the developer who has so far navigated through two of the three major layers of government regulators - a note to you sir would be to try to further minimize to get the permit into a "Nationwide" status (though this may be impossible). You sure stirred up a hornets nest. You may also want to hire an arborist (from outside Charleston) to produce an honest report on the impacts of the proposed development on the holy tree. Finally, just provide the honest facts, show the traffic, occupancy and availability of living and working space availability on Johns Island. The project can probably survive this if the numbers show that the type of facility you are building is now in demand in that area.
13 Jul 2010 9:55 am.
Nobody who lives or visits the Charleston area wants this specific land touched except for a few people with deep pockets and dollar signs in their eyes. There is a lot of commercial and residential real estate inventory right now in the Charleston area - this project is just bad. This isn't just a tree. The idea of it seems very foolish when I drive past so many vacant UGLY strip malls a daily basis.
13 Jul 2010 6:49 pm.
My God. Is nothing sacred anymore?
Having grown up on Johns Island, this does hit a little closer to home than most issues, but it is now, and always will be a very bad idea.