Missing the Angel Oak point

Too bad Charleston City Council didn't take the opportunity to advance a better plan for the development adjacent to its Angel Oak Park last week. Public sentiment has been loud and clear on the need for the city to do more on behalf of the venerable tree that is the centerpiece of the park.

Opponents of the proposed Angel Oak Village are worried about the nearby Angel Oak. They justifiably believe that the tree, and the city park, would benefit from more protection. They view the apartment complex planned nearby as an inappropriate intrusion upon one of the grandest works of nature. They are concerned about the long-term health of the tree, which they view as a living symbol of rural Johns Island.

So it had to be a surprise to those thousands who now oppose Angel Oak Village to learn from Mayor Joe Riley on Tuesday that it only became controversial when an affordable housing component was included in the complex. It was news to us, too.

It is our clear recollection that opposition to the project has grown strictly from the grass roots, and is centered wholly around concern for the iconic Angel Oak.

Two Johns Island residents, Samantha Siegel and Lorna Hattler, were so apprehensive that they began a campaign on behalf of the Angel Oak. So far, 11,400 people have signed a petition to oppose a project that they view as too intrusive to the venerable tree, the park and the nearby wetlands.

Their grass-roots campaign provided one of those rare moments that caused the community at large to take a step back and reconsider a project that hadn't previously encountered substantial criticism. In doing so, the community recognized that the opponents were right. The project is too big and too close to the park.

Indeed, the only complaint related to affordable housing that we can recall came when the developer recently announced that the first phase wouldn't include any of the affordable housing that had been promised. (Presumably it would all be done in the second phase.) That decision was viewed by some opponents as evidence of bad faith.

City Council would have done better to take the advice of council member Kathleen Wilson, who recommended that the city look anew at the planned unit development because of the numerous changes that have been made since council's initial approval in 2008.

Some of those changes have been wrought by the city's own Design Review Board, which has sought to make Angel Oak Village more palatable.

In short, Mrs. Wilson's objections are similar to those of other project opponents. She has long opposed the project as inappropriate to the site.

Other critics, including the Coastal Conservation League, were later in joining the opposition. It has taken the determined grass-roots campaign to make the case that the location of this project isn't optimal.

That is generally apparent now -- except to a few diehard supporters, including the mayor and a majority of City Council.