Hope everyone is staying cool this week—hydrated and maybe relaxing beneath a landmark tree. 😊 If the weather isn’t hot enough, the topic below is bound to raise a few temperatures. Let’s try to keep our cool while throwing a little well-earned shade.
All puns aside, at the June 17, 2025, Sterling Heights City Council meeting, City Manager Mark Vanderpool responded to two residents who spoke passionately about the Sterling Oak, its significance, the surrounding land, and the fact that it was purchased with American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.
Key Points
- Limited Authority Over Development: The city has limited power to prevent private land development, but as the land involved is city-owned, this situation raises questions about the erosion of public trust and decision-making accountability.
- Significance of the Sterling Oak: The Sterling Oak is a centuries-old landmark symbolizing natural heritage, and its potential destruction reflects deeper issues of natural asset protection and public trust.
- ARPA Funds Used for Land Acquisition and Projects: Sterling Heights purchased land for Riverland Park with a portion of $20 million in ARPA funds, intended for community improvements, but the land’s development plans raise environmental and ethical concerns.
- Environmental and Development Concerns: Development plans include floodplain development, cut-and-fill operations, and potential habitat loss, which conflict with conservation goals and undermine stated sustainability practices.
It’s often tough to raise criticisms when there are many things the City does well. But doing some good doesn’t excuse doing harm—especially if the harm is poorly rationalized. So who provides checks on these decisions? And how strong are they? What needs to change?
City staff may be solely focused on economics or understandably stay silent out of fear of impacts on their careers. Consultants or politically ambitious residents may hold back to remain in good graces. And when criticism is met with spin, falsehoods, or even ad hominem attacks—as has happened—it discourages honest scrutiny even further.
No one’s suggesting city leaders are malicious. But even well-intentioned people can be blinded by siloed thinking or a culture that discourages dissent. Does the City always “walk the talk”? No. That leaves the public—often short on time or resources—to dig through layers of information while large chunks of the puzzles are likely found behind closed doors.
That’s why this site exists: to offer public context. A centuries-old natural landmark deserves it. Too much has already been destroyed, paved over, and forgotten. We just wish half as much effort went into protecting what’s left as is spent hiring consultants to produce reports and presentations.
Back to the June 17 meeting: Mr. Vanderpool’s response misrepresented resident concerns by conflating public and private property rights—a classic straw man. We should expect better from city leadership. We know they can do better.
“The city doesn’t have the legal means to stop development across the city because of a particular tree species…development in our city just wouldn’t have occurred if um, you know, we prohibited developers from taking down an individual tree.” ~ City Manager Mark Vanderpool, City Council Meeting June 17, 2025
WHY THIS MATTERS
From day one, supporters of the Sterling Oak acknowledged a basic fact: the City has limited authority over privately owned land. That’s precisely what makes this situation so offensive—because this isn’t private land.
The fact that this is city-owned public land, purchased with taxpayer funds advertised as a project for a park (complete with visuals), then sold for a deeply discounted price to a developer. If ever there were a perfect legal scenario for protecting natural assets like the landmark trees and wetlands here, this was it. The City owned the land. It had full control. And it still chose to pave over history.
No one argued for halting development across the city. That’s also a straw man. Development is already widespread, and green space is already scarce—something Mr. Vanderpool himself admitted in past interviews when he acknowledged the City has taken green space for granted over the years.1
“When we had vast amounts of green space, it was ok if we didn’t always hit it perfectly… But we don’t have that, now being fully built out.”
~ Sterling Heights City Manager Mark Vanderpool to C&G Newspapers, June 5, 2023
This is precisely why preserving public land with significant natural assets like towering landmark trees and wetlands matters now more than ever.
More Than A Tree
As such, the Sterling Oak has become more than just a centuries-old, majestic, thriving big tree that may be the oldest living thing here. The obfuscation surrounding the destruction planned for this parcel, along with the city’s disappointing reactions, including disinformation, may be symbolic of deeper issues. How widespread are they? That’s hard to say without a thorough review of other developments. But as more facts surface, the Sterling Oak increasingly stands as a symbol of eroded public trust, shifting priorities, and confusing doublespeak.
Some may roll their eyes and dismiss this as melodrama over “just a tree.” A City Councilman has done just that. That’s fine. This post lays out verifiable facts about the ARPA-funded project that enabled the purchase of this land—and ultimately, the threats to the tree, its surrounding habitat, and the area’s natural history.
You can decide for yourself whether the concern is justified. And if you have thoughts, we welcome your comments.
Sterling Heights ARPA Funds
The City of Sterling Heights purchased the land of Riverland Amusement Park using Federal ARPA grant money after failing to sell for nearly 20 years of being on the open market. The area’s floodplain makes it an expensive and risky investment for private developers because of the cut & fill operations and deep structural supports needed for unstable soil; the market failure shouldn’t be surprising.
To gather community feedback on spending the total $19.8 million in ARPA funds, the city held “Funding our Future” public forums in October 2021. Residents were presented with proposals (archive) with beautiful, serene visuals to consider, including a community garden, road resurfacing, new trails, street tree plantings, a new park, sidewalk repairs, and park improvements. These projects aimed to improve the quality of life for existing residents in underfunded areas and help mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
ARPA funding also paid for the visual displays for $31,476.60 to “give residents a visual representation of the proposed use of funds” and two consultants for $109,859.95 to help assist the city on the projects according to the Brookings ARPA tracker, (Sept 2024.)
Land Acquisition for Riverland Park Improvements
A description accompanies each ARPA project, and many of them include contracted visuals for the public. Although it is not yet an officially recognized city park, the rest of this post will refer to “Riverland Park” as if it were one because the City referred to it as such in the ARPA funding application. The final total obligated amount for the land acquisition, according to the Brookings tracker, is $668,651.70.
This is the property where the Sterling Oak and 13 other towering landmark tree neighbors reside, with the exact wording communicated to residents. It looks peaceful. It’s difficult to imagine many not being a bit enticed by this utopian visual – but at what cost?
The “Best practices…” statement was copied verbatim from the North Van Dyke Avenue (NVDA) consultant workshop presentation material held during 2020. How could “best practices” possibly involve threats to towering old trees, wetlands, and clear-cutting? Simply because the workshop never went into such detail. The consultant did highlight such issues in general terms, like a lack of canopy in the NVDA, cautions about floodplains, and highlighted the natural assets of having the Clinton River greenway nearby (like the Riverland Park area).
The conceptual artist, working under the guidance of the City, likely had no clue about developing a protected floodway zone of the Clinton River. Aside from the impractical aspects of the building at the edge of the river, there is no mention or depiction of the eventual 2.7-acre, four-story affordable housing development and parking lot, or the total 5.79 acres of clear-cutting the project requires. Just a swanky little riverside bar serving microbrews at risk of falling into the river.
An expected and reasonable response may be that such site plans of 2024 weren’t known at the time of the ARPA presentations in 2021. However, no significant housing projects were depicted or described either – the artist could render whatever the city instructed them to do.
So, hold that thought – as if you are a squirrel with a tasty Chinkapin oak acorn.
SH City Council approves ARPA projects to move forward
Sterling Heights City Council reviewed and approved this Riverland Park ARPA project, along with the others, to move forward on April 19, 2022. In the minutes of the council meeting, again, no mention of a housing project for the park space. However, council members did have a few notable remarks worth highlighting during the ARPA project discussions.
“Councilman Radtke stated he loves the City but felt they need to rethink the infrastructure, and the direction they are going with roads, they will never “catch up.” He complained that too many residents are cutting down their trees, and although residents have the right to do that on their property, they do not have the right to do so on the city-owned rights of way. He emphasized that street trees beautify their city, and they slow traffic down, while increasing property values.“
SH city council meeting minutes DOCUMENTING Councilman mike radtke’S REMARKS, april 19, 2022 (emphasis added)
““She [Liz Sierawski] agreed with Councilwoman Koski that when they have city-owned property that is a green space, that is to their advantage, and they should not be selling them. There is a
SH city council meeting minutes DOCUMENTING MAYOR-PRO-TEM LIZ SIERAWSKI’S REMARKS, april 19, 2022
mini forest on those parcels, and there is no reason to sell them to a developer.”
As already reported – on August 7, 2024, Councilwoman Koski voted NO (along with Councilwoman Schmidt) on the Chaldean Community Foundation Development LLC (CCFD-LLC) Phase 2 apartment complex that would destroy the majority of the acreage at Riverland Park, citing reasons of protecting existing green space.2 Mr. Radtke and Mrs. Sierawski both voted YES for the project (see C&G footnote for total vote).
Let’s review – here is a snapshot of a basic timeline so far, but there are still some gaps to fill in (if viewing on mobile, use arrows to scroll dates):
What is the “North Van Dyke Redevelopment Plan” in the ARPA project description?
The NVDA Redevelopment plan is a study commissioned by the City of Sterling Heights in October 2020, which included community forums. The report was produced in May 2021, about five months before the ARPA funding forums in Oct 2021. The area involved is the entire 1.5-mile stretch of Van Dyke, from 18.5 Mile Road to Hall Road (M59). The workshops solicited community survey feedback, like this one about having parks in the NVDA:
Riverland Park is the only sizeable green space left in NVDA after decades of extensive development for strip malls, auto repair shops, and gas stations. The City’s TreeKeeper software indicates a decline in canopy coverage in the census tracts encompassing the NVDA area, ranging from 15% to 25% between 2010 and 2020.3 (outside the era of the emerald ash borer by the way)
It would make sense for this community request to be “Riverland Park.” It would make sense for city-acknowledged canopy deficiencies in Sterling Heights to not make it worse in the corridor. It would make sense for the city to purchase the privately owned site of the former Riverland Amusement Park, with no private market interest for 20 years, to create a park responding to the resident survey. It would help preserve what little green space remains in the corridor if that were the intention.
In the final NVDA report, the consultant included one particular resident’s comment:
CCF Phase 1 Tigris Tower Apartment Building
The pinned area where the resident dropped their comment now has a large 4-story apartment building sitting on it with large swaths of land torn up for cut-and-fill to build in the floodplain. The resident likely didn’t realize that the space was already approved for the CCFD-LLC Phase 1 project, Tigris Tower in May 20194. How could they know it was already a lost cause? It wasn’t shown. Discussions with Michigan DEQ (now EGLE) go back at least to 2018 for the development of that parcel.
By now, many people have read about these cut-and-fill operations needed to develop in floodplains. One of the many cut areas is shown below for the current Phase 1 project at Tigris Tower.
The NVDA report proposed A building at “Riverland Park”
This is true. As part of the many concepts explored as possibilities during the NVDA workshops, the consultant placed some building concepts, concert stages, food trucks, nightlife, and other possibilities throughout the corridor, even suggesting branding with t-shirts. It didn’t examine the feasibility of specific floodplain development or its environmental impacts.
These workshops provided information for the 245-page North Van Dyke Master Plan5. It placed a generic “Civic Facility” on the property of Riverland Park as one possibility, along with a baseball diamond. It also suggested the property of Riverland Park where the Sterling Oak exists is an Opportunity Site:
There was no detailed accounting of trees, wetlands, or required cut-and-fill operations to build anything. Again, a conceptual document for considering possibilities and allowances for zoning. If someone claims there were always buildings planned for the space it would be a bit disingenuous. For that matter, the NVDA Master Plan also recommends a Conservation Zone:
“The district’s frontage onto the
Sterling Heights North Van dyke avenue master plan, may 2021
Clinton River affords it a special
responsibility to protect lands
essential to accessing the river and
natural lands that surround it and
protect its environment.”
The point here is that city officials often remark on how they are following the North Van Dyke Master Plan’s approved objectives. They will point to the community feedback and sensing sessions that were involved in its development. Even ordinances with setbacks from the river may be wholly redundant for conservation if they are already protected by the state in the floodway region. Even the strongest tree ordinances can’t replace the habitats and connected mature tree contributions via replacements, leaving ecological deficits.
When you take the time to examine the larger story, it becomes evident that some are cherry-picking aspects to support a given action while conveniently ignoring the other elements of the plan that conflict with them.
Where is the analysis that examines these conflicts, trade-offs, and environmental impacts? Why is it left to the public to force them into the open, if the project is “guided by the best practices in… planning, sustainability, equity”, etc? Or, perhaps, the City made most of the decisions outside of public view and the public hearing was performative?
Is the garbage and algae-filled pond considered a “conservation zone?” Or maybe “undeveloped” because it doesn’t have a building on it.
[time to fetch that acorn]
Let’s review the new additions to the timeline …
EATING THE ACORN
These additional events, supported by documentation, demonstrate the housing concepts were well-known and established LONG BEFORE the ARPA presentations to the public, and the presentation and application for funding for “Riverland Park.” The earliest inquiry to Michigan DEQ (now EGLE) known is from 2017 for the Riverland Park area.6 However, the developer proceeded with the site known as Phase 1 to the south first in 2018.
The DEQ informed Mr. Manna of the CCF in the inquiry for Riverland Park:
“The project impacts wetlands, thus it must be demonstrated that it is in the public interest, that the activity is primarily dependent on being located in the wetland, that a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist (including no-build), and the activity is otherwise lawful.” – DEQ Letter to Martin Manna, President, Chaldean Community Foundation, April 6, 2017
Therefore – it is inconceivable that anyone working with the developer can claim any lack of awareness of the large-scale housing development intentions for the Riverland Park property. For all the money spent on expensive visuals and renderings – It raises some questions knowing development intentions (in concept or otherwise) were established by 2019:
- Why wouldn’t it be depicted in the community sensing sessions and renderings for North Van Dyke plans in October 2020?
- Why wouldn’t it be mentioned or depicted to the public for the Riverland Park ARPA renderings to purchase the land in October 2021?
If the answers are unsatisfactory, there is a term for such actions: propaganda.
FINAL THOUGHTS
So, in returning to the City Manager’s remarks about how the City doesn’t have the legal means to stop a development or protect a tree – it seems pretty clear that the situation with this property presented a perfect opportunity to protect the last tract of significant green space in the North Van Dyke Corridor. It was squandered because “Land Purchase for Riverland Park Improvements” apparently was never the intention despite the ARPA project title.
In fairness, responses with fallacious reasoning may or may not be intentional. At worst, they indicate deception or an attempt to manipulate the audience. They can be attempts to cover up embarrassment to mistakes or lack of awareness. The myriad of position statements from our representatives on the council, the perplexing omissions, and the lack of transparency do not help bring any additional clarity. They only fuel cynicism. And when it comes to many threats to the environment around us – it requires all hands on deck.
For those who have never reviewed the City Budget, there is a poignant organizational chart at the beginning of every single one. There isn’t the word “developers” at the top, or “consultants” or “campaign donors”- it is YOU – the current Residents of Sterling Heights. We have the right to conduct performance reviews, ask questions, and expect straight answers.
At the end of the day, the loss of the Sterling Oak, and the conditions that led to the threat may symbolize that something deeper is broken. Possibly one of the oldest living things in the City of Sterling Heights, executed by chainsaws, smoke, and mirrors.
We’ve now passed 3,000 signatures on the Sterling Oak petition — an incredible milestone. Even more powerful: 61% of those signatures are from our local community. For perspective, that’s more than the margin between elected and unelected candidates in the last City Council race.7
As we look ahead, each of us will need to weigh this and many other important issues when we vote in this year’s election. If you haven’t signed the petition yet, you can find it here:
- Eric Czarnik, “Officials discuss the future of development, land use,” C&G Newspapers, June 5, 2023 ↩︎
- Andy Kozlowski, “Centuries-old tree endangered by new development,” C&G Newspapers, January 17, 2025 ↩︎
- Sterling Heights TreeKeeper Canopy, accessed June 22, 2024 ↩︎
- Minutes of Public Hearing CCF Development LLC for a mixed-use Planned
Unit Development PPCM-1207, May 2019 ↩︎ - North Van Dyke Master Plan, Sterling Heights, Michigan ↩︎
- Michigan DEQ Letter to Martin Manna, Chaldean Community Foundation, April 6, 2017 ↩︎
- Sterling Heights Election Results Nov 2021: Council | Mayor ↩︎
😬 This post contained some regrettable typos that were fixed post-publication because a human wrote it, reviewed it 100+ times, and still missed them. Any substantive contextual changes would be disclosed.
– Clarified total NO votes on the CCFD-LLC Phase 2 project, for roll call vote, see footnote for C&G story
Leave a Reply