On February 14, 2025, journalist Andy Kozlowski of C&G Newspapers published a follow-up story to his original one in January about the centuries-old Chinquapin oak tree in Sterling Heights, Michigan. It began to hit resident’s mailboxes on February 20, 2025, in the print edition. After being contacted by many residents, Kozlowski made their voices known in the new article, where senior residents expressed concerns about a senior tree and what they have witnessed over decades of declining green space.

If you haven’t read those stories, you may want to follow the links above for the context surrounding what follows. More perspectives from the city are also featured again, with new quotes from other city council members. Let’s look at what they said and think more about the statements.

Why this matters: The vote on the development project that threatens this historic tree happened shortly before the Sterling Heights Pathway to Play and Preservation millage in November 2024, which passed by a slim margin. One of its components: to preserve green space. There are still a lot of open questions about the development project in the North Van Dyke district, how the deal unfolded, presentation content vs. omissions, and the rationales of the votes that followed. Being under city ownership provided the perfect opportunity to preserve these 10 acres of flood-prone land where this ancient oak resides. This follow-up article was an opportunity to provide more insight; let’s see if city officials offer that.

---

The first statement comes from Councilman Michael Radtke, to C&G Newspapers, in the article Residents protest plan to destroy tree older than United States;

“I wish local newspapers paid as much attention to the housing crisis and the need for housing and planning reform as they did to this single tree,” Radtke said in an email. “People need attainable housing, and Sterling Heights is committed to making itself a greener, more affordable city with a high quality of life. In the coming years, Sterling Heights will plant 15,000 new trees, improve streetscapes, preserve green space, and add tremendous walkability. That bottom line, rather than one tree, is how residents should judge their city government.”

~ Sterling Heights Councilman Michael Radtke to C&G News, Feb 14, 2025

An interesting response. A first reaction is that it appears rather dismissive — all this over a single tree? Well, that indeed is what the article is about, as well as the one before it. If this kind of attitude is pervasive, then maybe it isn’t surprising Sterling Heights has a low tree canopy (archive) – improving very little over the last 9 years when it was first measured in 2016. The old trees providing it today are continually sacrificed.

Many residents have shown that they care (link to petition) about a single tree, even many old trees. As 94-year-old resident Ella Holloway told Kozlowski, “It’s ridiculous, all these sticks they’re putting up around town, taking the old trees.” Many old trees are already gone without a trace, without a voice. However, the councilman chooses to take a dismissive tone and attempts deflection—don’t look at that—look at these things we are doing!

Planting flowers behind the bulldozer hardly fools anyone.

The political pivot is a common, expected tactic when faced with uncomfortable questions. Planting flowers behind the bulldozer hardly fools anyone. Whether intentional or not, inserting logical fallacies into the issue isn’t helping. While housing affordability is important, it does not directly address whether cutting down a historical landmark is justified. (see also; red herring / false dilemma / straw man). Recall the language in the city’s ordinance on landmark trees: “should not be removed unless absolutely necessary.“

Remarks like these are attempts to deflect and dismiss legitimate concerns about this historic tree’s potential removal or its right to exist and shift to a broader housing and city planning policy. “I wish local newspapers paid as much attention to the housing crisis…as they did to this single tree” simply isn’t supported by fact. A search of the C&G Newspaper archives or any other local paper shows plenty of articles on developments for housing affordability.

It’s also blatantly dismissive of the ecological value of this majestic oak, recognition of its historical presence, and the concerns of residents around—yes, a single, very old tree. As of last Friday, this particular tree has a total of … two articles in the local paper. How many never had a voice?

Councilman Henry Yanez also stated to C&G Newspapers, “This issue is equally important to me, as are all of the quality-of-life issues we face in Sterling Heights.” Yanez is a known proponent of many of the City’s green initiatives, but when it came to this development, he voted to approve it in August 2024 while expressing remorse for the “big oaks.” There is no question about Yanez’s commitment to making the city greener, but a question would be at what age of tree, size, or ecological impact would be enough to tip the vote?

Thinking Green

The City of Sterling Heights is undoubtedly breaking a lot of new ground with many of its initiatives compared to its peers in Macomb County, Michigan. Its parks are second to none, and city events and first-class public safety departments are appreciated and celebrated. It maintains a relatively low tax rate, and many residents, like those speaking to the local newspaper about the tree, have lived here for decades. These things are also extensively written about and celebrated in local newspapers. Initiatives like upcycled wind turbine benches, EV fleet purchases, and more trails are terrific.

The issues surrounding this tree are about none of that, and it’s disingenuous at best to suggest they are being ignored. The biggest question is if, despite all of these significant initiatives, the city maintains a blind spot and lower priority for the protection of declining historic natural assets and ecosystems. These are not replaceable like a fleet vehicle. Worldwide, there are concerns about the greenwashing of environmental initiatives. As such, municipalities would be best served by increasing transparency and producing comprehensive data that supports those initiatives.

From an ecological math perspective, it requires acknowledging and appreciating the contributions of large, mature mother hub trees instead of continuously pivoting to how many small trees are planted. Remember that these planting efforts aren’t due to significant budget allocations but grants and millage increases. Planting trees is indeed expensive, preserving trees on publicly owned land—not so much, but it does require prioritizing preservation over replacement.

This isn’t a false dilemma. Both new plantings and protecting ecosystem-supporting old trees are needed. If we do one but not so much the other, public perceptions and the surrounding environment suffer. Again, the key point here is that this is public land and protectable, it does not involve private landowner rights.

Problematic Rationalizations

Recall that Mayor Pro Tem Liz Sierawski switched her vote on this development proposal between Round 1 (July 2024) and Round 2 (August 2024.) C&G Newspapers also reported on this at the time:

“Mayor Pro Tem Liz Sierawski said one reason she opposes the proposal is that it contradicts one of the objectives of the city’s November millage proposal, which is raising revenue to acquire and preserve open land in the city. “

~ Excerpt from Tied council vote delays fate of Chaldean Community Foundation apartment proposal by Eric Czarnik, July 29, 2024

But then, in August 2024:

“Sierawski explained her vote change, adding that she has also talked to experts, including from EGLE, since the prior meeting. She said talking to her civil engineer brother and EGLE helped convince her that this plan will neither hurt the land nor do damage.”

~ Excerpt from Council approves CCF’s second north Van Dyke apartment proposal 5-2 by Eric Czarnik, Aug 23, 2024

Another puzzling rationalization. Not hurt the land or do damage? The trees respectfully disagree—the wetlands, too. The life that depends on them may want a say. Or perhaps, as Mr. Radtke suggested, it is just a single tree (though actually 14 landmark trees per the submitted August 2024 site plan).

Since EGLE issued development concerns about wetland disruptions in 2017, which were omitted from city presentations, and EGLE then repeated them in the letter of Sept 2024, it questions precisely what that conversation with EGLE entailed. How much review did the “civil engineer brother” do? Was it a limited question like “Does this building cause flooding?” Or was it simply long enough to ease any guilt over a vote switch?

The contradiction with the November 2024 Pathways to Play millage to preserve open green space still exists. It was one of the key reasons councilwomen Schmidt and Koski maintained their no-votes in two rounds of votes on this development. Concerns expressed by EGLE and language in the city’s tree ordinance both beg the question of whether this is absolutely necessary. In the FAQ (archive) for the millage, there was a question about what happens if the millage fails. The City answered: “In addition, open land will continue to be sold to private developers who will develop the land into profitable uses, removing additional green space from our community.” Huh. <eyebrows raised>

The fate of a centuries-old tree, estimated to be here when the United States was founded, surviving wars, droughts, floods, deforestation, and suburban sprawl shouldn’t be decided over such problematic rationalizations. Attacks on public lands are also a centuries-old struggle, and this remains a disappearing opportunity to protect it fully. Affordable housing can be built where it doesn’t destroy the dwindling natural history or house the poor in a flood zone. Lines must be drawn when the stewards of those public lands begin to make questionable, neglectful, and sometimes belligerent sacrifices.

Respectfully,

The Sterling Oak

“We abuse land because we see it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”

~ Aldo Leopold

Featured Image: Use under License © Paresh Nath