A tale of two cities

PEORIA -- Lets do an amusing comparison: Peoria, IL and Charleston, South Carolina.

Population:  the same.

History:  both have interesting histories.  Charleston has a lovely history museum, one of the first of its kind in the US.  Peoria‘s museum?  It’s a work in progress.

Protection of natural resources and historical legacy: Oops! 

Charleston has strict ordinances protecting its historic buildings and its trees.  Peoria has virtually none.

In Charleston, no structures 75 years old or older can be demolished. Period. Some deterioration may take place, but that can be reversed, advocates say.  Demolition is forever.

In Charleston, no trees can be cut down if they are larger than eight inches around, except in extraordinary circumstances. People are fined who violate the ordinance. Grand trees, larger than 24 inches, receive extra protection. 

The result:  Charleston is a beautiful city, filled with valuable, historic buildings and homes that are well kept. Some are museums, most are lived in and valued.  It has a 14-square mile historic district that attracts visitors.  New construction must blend into the neighborhoods and city scape and look historic.

It has a gorgeous tree canopy of beautifully cared for trees of all kinds. Many are huge live oaks, especially cherished.

And we all know what Peoria is:  nasty fights over building demolition, with the property owners usually winning.  The buildings come down, to be replaced with parking lots or another drug store. Or chain hotel or restaurant. 

The trees are butchered by the developers and utility companies looking for the cheapest way to cut costs. Many look awful.  Many others are cut down, and if they’re replaced at all, it will be with tiny new trees with no shade value and no dignity or shelter for wildlife.
The result:  Except for a few streets, Peoria is an ugly city.  Even its inner historic areas are uneven in protection.  The city’s look and legacy rests on the whim or greed of individual property owners.  So sad. So stupid.

 --  Elaine Hopkins 

Comments

[No One In Particular]

Except not all trees in Charleston are protected, Elaine. Under "exemptions" in their proposed ordinance:

"Invasive Tree Species. If an invasive species is 16 inches or greater DBH, then the tree will be permitted with a condition that one – 2 ½” caliper recommended replacement tree be planted on the lot in which the tree was removed."

Also, utility companies are exempt!! Link: http://www.charlestoncity.info/shared/docs/0/tor%20draft%203%2023%2009.pdf.

Does Charleston do a better job than Peoria? Definitely. But it isn't the sanctuary you pretend it is.

[Elaine Hopkins]

Hummm -- guess you spent more time than I did looking up the
ordinances.
I am on vacation and just left Charleston where a licensed tour guide
yesterday told our group that trees are not cut down. I also checked
and found an ordinance in effect. Not sure what you mean about
proposed ordinance. No time to research it tonight.
Do you defend the right of utility cos to cut down anything they want?
What does that prove other than greed rules all? What about my ideas,
to bury their lines?
I saw nothing about invasive species in the Charleston ordinance I
saw on line. There are plenty of what are apparently non native trees
in Charleston. Maybe theyre not considered invasive but beautiful.
Locusts are not invasive either, and are beautiful for about 10 days
each spring. Not any more. I dread returning to Peoria and seeing those
trees gone.
Maybe Ill move to Charleston, or another place where trees and
historic buildings are valued instead of destroyed.

[No One In Particular]

All I did was Google their ordinance. I found a "proposed" ordinance (which was supposed to be stricter than the existing). I don't know if it passed. You can see most City codes at www.municode.com.

I don't disagree that the cutting down of trees is a bad thing, Elaine. I just took offense at you accusing the water co., with not a shred of evidence, that they were corrupt.

We all make decisions in life. They made theirs and I assume they felt it was because the trees posed some threat. They said they were going to replant trees in the spring, but that is not good enough for you, I guess.

[Elaine Hopkins]

I didnt say they were corrupt. I said that when actions make no
apparent sense we should look for other motives. To me cutting down
those trees made no sense.
There are other things they could have done that likely would have been
cheaper and better. (Prune the trees, bury the electric lines, install
screens over intakes if thats a concern, those the trees have been
there for years.) So why do it? Kickbacks? Stupid? Hate trees? I dunno.

Did you ever even see those trees? I saw them every time I left my
residence. Now theyre gone. The evergreen trees they had planted last
year or the year before around other parts of the site are small,
boring, and some of them are dead.
The trees that were cut down were all grand trees, including huge
irreplaceable trees that flower every spring. They provided shade for
the property. Now theyre gone. Just a little bit of beauty wiped out.
And for what reason?