Letters published on Sept. 24 and Sept. 28 very eloquently and persuasively defended sweet gum trees against the charges leveled against them in the news article of Sept. 17, titled “Sour on sweet gums? Tree to lose protection.”

In that article, two otherwise responsible citizens used the irresponsible words “junk” and “dime a dozen” in describing these trees.

Charleston Trees strongly believes that there is no such thing on planet Earth as a “junk” tree.

Unfortunately, sometimes trees grow or are planted in places that are not beneficial for people, for structures, or for the trees themselves.

Sweet gums, like all trees, are critically important, beneficial parts of the natural environment and should not be disparaged or discarded just because they are in an inconvenient or unsuitable location.

All trees deserve careful, thoughtful consideration and care.

If there is no viable alternative such as remedial pruning or cabling of limbs, we do not necessarily object to the removal of a healthy tree that has outgrown its space.

However, we think the newly amended City of Charleston ordinance should require replanting an appropriate size and species of tree when a sweet gum is removed.

As currently written, replacement is not required, a mistake in our minds.

We hope that the resident will follow through on his promise to replant and that anyone who has to remove a sweet gum will do the same.

Anne Moise

Smith Street


Mayo Read

Windermere Boulevard


Co-Chairs, Charleston Trees

Charleston Horticultural Society