City Council considers study on feasibility of rebuilding or moving obelisk
The City Council unanimously voted to approve spending $100,000 from the city's general fund for a study assessing the feasibility of rebuilding or moving the Soldiers' Monument at Wednesday's City Council meeting.
The study was directed from an October resolution passed by the council in a 5-4 vote. Originally intended to explore the feasibility of moving the obelisk to the Santa Fe National Cemetery, the resolution was later modified to direct the city manager to explore the feasibility of moving it to any new location or rebuilding it on the Plaza without taking any further action.
Constructed in 1867 in honor of Civil War Union soldiers, the obelisk has long been controversial because of a plaque also honoring soldiers who died in battles with 'savage Indians' during the same period. The word 'savage' was chiseled away in 1974 and on Indigenous Peoples Day in 2020 the monument was partially toppled by protestors.
Less than two months after the October resolution's passage, state District Court Judge Matthew Wilson rendered his decision in a lawsuit the Hispanic fraternal organization Union Protectiva de Santa Fe filed against the city in 2021 seeking for the monument to be rebuilt.
Wilson's Dec. 19 ruling required the city to remove the box that had been surrounding the base of the obelisk since it was torn down within 30 days and to either rebuild the obelisk within 180 days or to follow a little-used process outlined by the State Historic Preservation Office.
City Attorney Erin McSherry has said previously her understanding of the ruling also includes the option that the city take no further action after removing the box.
The city decided not to appeal Wilson's ruling and in January removed the box surrounding the obelisk and cleaned it of graffiti but had not taken any other action until now.
Wednesday's vote was to allocate funding for the study but was not an approval of an actual contract, which is still in the process of being negotiated. A request for qualifications was published on the city's website earlier in the year and received one response, city spokesperson Regina Ruiz wrote in a Wednesday email.
'There wasn't a robust response to that but there is a firm that's been identified that's capable of doing that work," City Manager Mark Scott said Wednesday.
A scope of work document states the study would include conducting a structural assessment of the obelisk and use that to determine the "services, timelines, and costs" required to rebuild it to either a "like or similar condition" to its pre-2020 state or its pre-2020 condition without the "savage Indians" plaque. It would also evaluate the feasibility and costs of moving the monument to the National Cemetery or another location, "including all logistics or minimizing damage" and to summarize all the findings in a written report.
At a Feb. 19 Quality of Life committee meeting, Scott said the contract is still being negotiated and the scope of work will include some type of public engagement process.
In response to a question at the committee meeting, he said his understanding is that the study can be completed within 60 to 90 days. Its unclear if the city would be penalized if the city did ultimately decided to rebuild the obelisk but did so past the 180 day limit.
"There is an understanding that timing is very critical," he said.
On Wednesday, Scott said the study will likely cost less than $100,000 but that future actions would likely cost much more.
"We don't believe that the initial work is going to cost that much, maybe even as little as half that much, but we don't know where it goes," he said.
At the committee meeting, several councilors said they would like to have either a special meeting to discuss the obelisk or to receive a presentation at a regular council meeting regarding the city's options, something Scott said he will accommodate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Johnstown mayoral candidates King, DeBartola bring opposing views to Central Park effort
JOHNSTOWN, Pa. – Whether to spend millions of dollars remodeling and modernizing Johnstown's Central Park is a question that exemplifies the city's differing political opinions, including for candidates in this year's mayoral race. Deputy Mayor the Rev. Sylvia King, the Democratic nominee, is part of the establishment that has promoted the project that will include installing new sidewalks, a pavilion for entertainment, monuments walkway, greenery and infrastructure upgrades. King recently voted in favor of a motion approving a final plan for the park that passed Johnstown City Council by a 6-1 vote. Republican Party mayoral candidate John DeBartola, who considers himself a political outsider, has used his platform on Revitalize Johnstown and in public forums to oppose the plan. The project, which is expected to cost between $6 million and $8 million, is being funded by American Rescue Plan Act money for COVID-19 pandemic relief. City Council approved putting the funds toward the park project from among the $30.7 million it received in ARPA money that it was awarded in 2021. 'The vast majority of the public opposes spending $8 million to completely redesign Central Park,' DeBartola said. 'The city could have used that money to remove blight in neighborhoods, build a new police station, or support a grocery store downtown. … It's a shame city leaders prioritized Central Park over the police, fire department or our neighborhoods.' DeBartola added: 'All the public wants is honest and fair leadership. The way the city has handled the Central Park project shows they have neither.' King pointed out that the city used ARPA funds in numerous ways, including programs for home repairs, home purchases, sewer assistance, stormwater upgrades, community neighborhood development, nonprofit assistance, food insecurity and the Frank J. Pasquerilla Conference Center. The money is also linked to the $8 million in the U.S. Department of Transportation's Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development grant (formerly Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity) for a streetscape in the Main Street corridor. 'The ARPA funds were used as leverage to complement the RAISE grant,' King said. 'Because they are leveraged funds, they are tied to specific projects which were outlined in the RAISE grant application – and therefore cannot be reallocated for other uses. The use of ARPA funds to invest in infrastructure projects supports the revitalization of downtown.' King said the proposed changes will, in her opinion, make Central Park 'more interactive' for visitors and easier for people using mobility aids to navigate, while helping boost the economy. 'Being able to invest in the infrastructure of the city is paramount,' King said. 'The changes being made will stimulate and motivate our local economy. Hopefully it will spark more entrepreneurship initiatives. There will be inconveniences along the way. We ask for your patience during these upgrades.' The RAISE (now BUILD) grant was awarded in 2021. 'After 4 years, the RAISE grant seems to be inching along,' DeBartola wrote in an email. 'The problem is that in those 4 years, the cost of building materials has skyrocketed. The inability to execute the grant has caused us to lose millions due to inflation.'
New York Times
12 hours ago
- New York Times
What to Know About Early Voting in New York City's Mayoral Primary
After two debates, countless candidate forums, millions of dollars spent on advertisements and months of campaigning, early voting is beginning in New York City's contentious Democratic primary for mayor. Registered voters can begin casting ballots on Saturday. Primary races for other city offices are on the ballot as well, including City Council, comptroller and public advocate. Here's what to know if you plan to vote early. Primary Day is June 24. When can I vote? The early voting period across New York State begins Saturday, June 14, and runs through Sunday, June 22. The opening and closing times for New York City polling places vary by day, so check the Board of Elections's website before heading out. How do I find my polling place? Look it up here. Keep in mind that your early voting location may differ from where you would vote on Primary Day. Who is eligible to vote? Anyone who has lived in New York City full-time for at least 30 days before the election and does not claim the right to vote elsewhere is eligible to vote if they are a U.S. citizen, at least 18 and not in prison on a felony conviction, and have not been deemed mentally unfit to vote. Voters must be registered with a political party to vote in that party's primary, meaning registered Republicans and unaffiliated voters cannot vote in the Democratic primary for mayor. (There is no Republican primary for mayor this year.) Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
Padilla backlash could backfire on Democrats, some in party worry
Democratic Party officials have been united in their public and vigorous support of Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) after he was forcibly removed and handcuffed at a news conference for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday. Since then, Democrat after Democrat has offered their backing to Padilla, calling the incident a grave miscarriage of justice and signaling an effort to take on President Trump and his administration. But behind the scenes, a number of Democrats worry the incident won't play well for the party in the long run, especially since the chatter appeared to fall along party lines in the aftermath of Padilla's removal. In interviews Friday, these Democrats didn't want to speak on the record given that officials in their party are publicly unanimous in backing Padilla. But these sources say they fear the Padilla incident could have negative ramifications as the party tries to find its way back from their devastating loss in November. 'Here's the thing: Did it change anyone's minds or did it just rev up the base?' said one Democratic strategist worried the incident could backfire on their party. 'This is what we don't understand. We think these moments will cause outrage, but they miss the point. It's not swaying anyone. It just makes us look petty.' Some Democrats said the moment was political theater that would just become another thing for red and blue America to disagree over. 'I'm not sure it stands out, especially as more Democrats begin to take a stand,' a second party strategist said. 'Let's put it this way, it's a zero-sum game.' The mild-mannered Padilla remained the talk of political circles Friday, even as news about the incident disappeared from cable television airwaves amid Israel's strikes on Iran and Tehran's counterattacks. Even with that conflict crowding the Padilla controversy out of the spotlight, Democrats were seeking to turn the moment into a talking point against President Trump — and a fundraising opportunity to boot. Padilla himself was fundraising off the incident and doing interviews. 'If that's what they do to a United States senator with a question, imagine what they do to farm workers, day laborers, cooks, and the other nonviolent immigrants they are targeting in California and across the country,' a fundraising note from Padilla said. In his own fundraising appeal, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) called Padilla 'one of the most decent people.' And the Democratic National Committee said the incident 'isn't normal and are steps toward authoritarianism,' a sentiment other Democrats echoed in statements. Some Democrats said their party should go even further. Democratic strategist Christy Setzer said she hoped Padilla and Democrats could 'successfully leverage this moment … but I'm skeptical.' 'Trump's thugs chose Padilla to rough up for a reason: to show they'll physically take on anyone who dares to question them, including and especially a Hispanic man with power,' Setzer said. 'The response from congressional Democrats should be absolutely apoplectic 'They should shut down the Senate. Even the meekest response — calling for DHS to fire the men who handcuffed Padilla — would be welcome,' Setzer added. The incident surrounding Padilla comes at a time when Democrats are anxious to stand up to Trump and the GOP. While there was some thought early in the Trump administration to try to work alongside Republicans, some Democrats have concluded that it's the wrong approach. Instead, they're leaning into a fighting stance against the president. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) dared Trump to arrest him, after the two men got into a back-and-forth over the immigration raids in Los Angeles and the protests and at times violent disorder that followed. 'Just get it over with,' Newsom said. 'Arrest me.' Earlier this year, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) took a tough stance while participating in a 25-hour filibuster on the floor of the upper chamber. And in April, Sen. Chris Van Holden (D-Md.) traveled to El Salvador to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, one of his constituents who was deported to a prison in that country. Democrats said they expected the tougher stance to continue in the months ahead. 'Democrats are at a moment where the base needs to see them show their willingness to fight,' said Democratic strategist Joel Payne, who predicted that more Democrats would follow Padilla and Newsom in standing up to Trump. 'We need to demonstrate to our voters that we're not just going to talk the tack but we're going to walk the walk.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
