Parkside controversy brews downtown

Less than a month after developer Stewart Coleman's statement of intent to cut down a historic downtown magnolia tree, Asheville's long-brewing Parkside controversy may be drawing to a close. Or not.

A Brief History of Parkside

In March 2006, Asheville developer Stewart Coleman, whose family's SB Coleman Construction Company built the Asheville Mall in 1972, purchased the Hayes & Hopson building, downtown Asheville's oldest structure.

Seven months later, the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners sold Coleman an adjoining alley and parcel of downtown parkland bordering the circular drive in front of City Hall.

Coleman planned to use the purchased land for a mixed-use, 11-story structure with retail space, offering luxury condominiums from the $900s, according to its Web site. Called Parkside, the condominium complex slated for construction on an area historically perceived as part of a public park.

The parcel holds a tall magnolia tree that for more than four decades has served as the traditional site of Shindig on the Green, an annual summertime festival of bluegrass, old-time music and Southern Appalachian tradition.

Plans for Parkside included the destruction of the tree and the demolition of the nearby Hayes & Hopson building. On Aug. 6, Coleman hand-delivered a letter to protesters informing them of his intent to cut down the magnolia sometime after mid-Sept.

Asheville benefactor, George W. Pack's heirs filed suit against Coleman and his realty company, asserting a 1901 document dedicated use of the magnolia parcel to the people of Asheville forever. The heirs' suit also asserted ownership would revert to Pack's living heirs if it were ever sold for private use.

The Ruling

On Aug. 28, Superior Court Judge Marlene Hyatt ruled in favor of the Pack heirs, a move that might render Coleman unable to build the proposed complex. The next step in the fate of the magnolia parcel is the issue of a written order, signed by Hyatt, detailing the parcel's newly declared ownership and development status.

"The best thing that could happen is for the county to give the money back to the developer, take back the title and convey the property to a conservancy or public trust so that this never happens again," said the heirs' attorney, Joe Ferikes. "I think the county needs to assure the public this will never happen again, and by appropriate documentation, not just say-so."

Despite what seems like a victory, Ferikes offered a worst-case scenario: having Hyatt's order overturned by a higher court. However, if a reversal comes, it lies far ahead, he said.

"If (Stewart Coleman and his realty company) appeal, which they have 30 days after Judge Hyatt signs the order to do, it takes about a year for a case to be appealed," he said.

Ferikes has a special connection to the case that, at least for now, he seems to have won.

Raised in a neighborhood three blocks from City Hall, he played in the branches of the magnolia as a boy.

"Obviously, I always felt like that area was and always had been a park," he said. "I felt like it should be present for future generations. Everybody has always loved that park."

Parkside Support, Parkside Opposition

Parkside is not without supporters who hope the complex will still begin construction.

One is Mike Butrum, Governmental Affairs Director for the Asheville Board of Realtors, who called Parkside a boon to the city that would offer jobs and attract tourists. He said Coleman's package offer to city and county officials includes the donation of a percentage of the proceeds from each condo sale toward an affordable-housing fund established by the city of Asheville.

Butrum estimated not building the original 11-story Parkside complex would eliminate hundreds of thousands of dollars that would be used for affordable housing locally.

"I think it's a good project for the city," he said. "Development means the ability to raise money through property taxes. There's a real benefit, monetarily."

Widespread public outcry against Parkside was not swift. But when it began, it included a fire storm of attention from local bloggers, "Save the magnolia" t-shirts and an organized protest beneath the tree with live music and fresh peaches.

It also included a petition with more than 6,000 signatures asking city council and county commissioners to wrest ownership of the property from Coleman through eminent domain, the right of the government to seize private property without the owner's consent, but with due monetary compensation.

Further protests included a 24/7 citizen "magnolia watch" during which people have kept vigil under the magnolia night and day for over a month. The magnolia watchers sleep the ground by the tree at night and sit under its branches in camp chairs during the day. Occasionally they enjoy morning coffee, bottled water and treats dropped off by supporters of their efforts.

Magnolia watcher Clare Hanrahan estimated she has sat under the tree from three to 10 hours almost daily since the 24/7 monitoring began in July.

According to Hanrahan, the 24/7 watches at the magnolia are uninterrupted and will continue indefinitely.

"The watch continues until the order is signed and the tree secure," she said.

While Asheville citizens focus much attention on the fate of the old magnolia, some find other aspects of the land sale more concerning.

According to local blogger and political activist Gordon Smith, it's a mistake to think public sentiment revolves around the tree.

He pointed out local disapproval includes not only informal citizen groups but also the Asheville Downtown Association, the Preservation Society of Asheville and Buncombe County, Pack Square Conservancy, Asheville City Council and the editorial board of the Asheville Citizen-Times.

"Some opposed (Parkside) because of the tree, yes," said Smith. "Some opposed it because of the fact the sale was inserted into the (county) agenda with no public notice of the agenda item. Some opposed it because the county staff ought to have known they were selling parkland."

Butrum echoed Smith's concern about the county commission's sale of park land.

"If in fact the sellers were not in their rights to sell, that borders on the inexcusable," he said.

The Blue Banner will continue to follow the Parkside controversy this semester and follow up with additional stories in the future.

Be the first to comment on this article!

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out