The Sterling Oak

This is a question some officials have raised. However, it is a narrowly-focused view.

Not only is this tree unique for its age, reaching back to pre-colonial times and surviving mass clearings for farmland and development pressures over 200 years, but it is also an active partner in an ecosystem and, as a keystone species, supports hundreds, if not thousands, of other species. This “just a tree” thinking adds up in failing to properly account for its ecosystem role, and was confirmed by an independent arborist when the story was unfolding:

“I often refer to these kinds of trees as ‘landmarks’ due to their size, age and value. I would definitely consider this chinquapin to be a landmark — and a historic one, for that matter,” said Little. “We could plant 200 new trees today, but in our lifetime, we won’t see them doing what this chinquapin already does today.”

“The cool thing about mature trees is they’re like a mother to all the surrounding trees and wildlife,” Little said. “You may have heard of the mycelium network — an underground fungal network uniting all trees, where they communicate with each other with their roots and send nutrients to each other. If one tree needs a bit of nitrogen because of loss during a storm, the surrounding oaks can send nitrogen to that tree. And large mature trees like this chinquapin provide so much.”
~ Arborist Evan Little to Sterling Sentry, May 9, 2025

Additionally, many view the selloff of the Riverland Park property as a significant departure from how the land purchase was originally presented. Public land was advertised and purchased with taxpayer dollars for “park improvements,” with no mention of a massive housing development taking its place, all happening while advertising a tax millage to protect land from private development.

This situation is another powerful example of how political influence, insufficient review, and biased framing can overshadow ecological science and nature protection, especially as greenwashing and mistrust of institutions rise.

Providing housing offers many benefits, of course, and is often used to justify sacrificing this last remaining green space (and a majority of the natural assets with it) on North Van Dyke Avenue. History shows this as a repeating pattern of prioritizing development, with 92% of our wetlands already lost.

Just as trees require “the right tree for the right place” considerations in planting, housing should, too. The Sterling Oak and the surrounding natural features are broader symbols of development pursued without sufficient regard for what is permanently lost

History demonstrates that environmental justice issues arise when the affordability crisis pushes affordable housing into high-risk floodplain areas where land is cheap. People in need of affordable housing then accept the risks of being in a high-risk flood zone, long after the ribbon cuttings.

Multiple studies emphasize that flood mitigation is best achieved, and most cost-effective, by leveraging existing natural assets. Assets that aren’t easily replaced without more expensive grey infrastructure (sewer expansions, storage, basins, etc.). These aspects aren’t given a thorough review when development presentations present a one-sided bias toward the positives while minimizing or obscuring the negatives and risks.

Tax millages, city plans, consultant recommendations, and officials’ rhetoric all emphasize the critical need to protect our declining green spaces and landmark trees, underscoring the truism that actions speak louder than words.

No — not if the word is being used in its ordinary meaning or in the way preservation is generally understood in Michigan planning. A reasonable reader would ordinarily understand preserved to mean retained/protected, not excavated & compacted by heavy equipment to be later left as open space.

City officials and planning documents have repeatedly described most of this parcel as being “preserved as open space.” Earlier statements said, “This development includes 10.5 acres, of which eight acres will be preserved as open space,” while the revised 2026 Council packet now states that “over 9 acres of open space will be preserved.” 

But these statements conflate two very different things: land that will remain classified as open space after development, and existing natural land that will actually be preserved from disturbance. The project plans show clearing, tree removal, excavation, compensating cut-and-fill, grading, and subsequent restoration or revegetation extending well beyond the building and parking area.

That distinction is not merely semantic. 

In ordinary usage, to preserve something means to protect it from harm or destruction or keep it intact. In Michigan planning practice, preservation is likewise associated with retaining natural resources and undeveloped conditions, and the Michigan Association of Planning (MAP) — the professional organization from which Sterling Heights has repeatedly received and publicly celebrated planning awards — expressly distinguishes preservation from restoration. 

Land that is cleared, excavated, filled, or graded and then seeded or restored may ultimately remain open space, but describing the preexisting land itself as “preserved” gives a reasonable reader, and voting member of a commission or our city council, a materially different impression of what will happen to the site. Ecologically, this disturbance can substantially affect the health of remaining trees and wetlands, often not witnessed until years later.

A more accurate description would be that much of the parcel may remain designated as open space after construction, while a substantially smaller portion of the existing natural landscape will remain undisturbed. The City has not yet provided that undisturbed-acreage figure.

This FAQ makes no claim about the intent behind the wording. But when “open space” and “preserved” can create very different impressions of what will physically happen to the land, why not state the disturbance acreage plainly in public summaries?

The Sterling Heights City Council approved the concept development project plans in August 2024 by a 5-2 vote, despite significant public protest. The dissenting council members cited reasons to preserve green space, especially in light of a November 2024 Pathways to Play & Preservation tax increase, claiming that the goals included protecting green space from private development. A notable contradiction.

In August 2026, after failing to secure the necessary permits from Michigan EGLE because of existing wetlands, highlighted in 2017, and the proposed cut depths, the developer returned with a revised development plan: cut wider instead of deeper, build a smaller building, and shift away from the term “affordable housing.”

Given the publicity, it was proposed to make this oak a “protected tree,” but the details raised concerns, including requests to intrude into the ordinance-mandated critical root zone (CRZ) and concept renderings that promoted the tree as the centerpiece of a gathering place surrounded by gravel, an obviously poor environment for any tree’s health. In addition, the proposal calls for significant clearing into the Clinton River floodway, disturbing more habitat there. Still, the Sterling Heights Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposal with little pushback, except from residents.

This land still belongs to the City of Sterling Heights — the closing isn’t final yet! Your representatives on City Council could now legally change the course of this development.

The purchase agreement between the City of Sterling Heights and the Chaldean Community Foundation (dba CCF Development Grillo Limited Dividend Housing Association, LLC) requires the CCF to obtain permits and financing before final closing.

More than 2 years later — this hasn’t happened!

Concerned citizens, through petitions, emails, and numerous public comment sessions, have highlighted various concerns about the project.

As of March 2025, March 2026 July 2026, Sept 2026 the following conditions still need to occur:

• Michigan EGLE permit for Part 301/303 Inland Lakes & Streams / Wetlands Protection (numerous issues exist per the pre-meetings)
• Michigan State Housing Development Authority’s (MSHDA) disposition on funding and compliance with Environmental Review requirements (if still being pursued)

Or, based on further review and consideration of relevant facts not made clear during the initial votes and discussions, the Sterling Heights City Council and/or Chaldean Community Foundation can choose to work together to find a more suitable location with less destructive impact on the district’s last remaining natural features.

This is legally allowed per the purchase agreement as of Jan 1, 2026.

Write, Call, Stay Informed. Repeat.

Already, through the efforts of many residents who have spoken out, the city has recognized this tree’s importance. For many supporters, the Sterling Oak has also become a symbol of a broader and cumulative loss—the gradual disappearance of mature trees, wetlands, open land, and familiar natural places as development continues across the community.

Its uncertain future comes at a time when residents are being asked to invest more in preserving parks and natural spaces, while also watching publicly owned natural land remain vulnerable to development.

We believe stewardship of public land should reflect the same care and responsibility residents are expected to show toward their own property.

Let’s give a voice to this majestic Chinquapin oak tree—and to all the others like it that don’t have one.