New Haven Independent: Sidewalk Memorials Debated

Sidewalk Memorials Debated

by Melissa Bailey | October 12, 2007 1:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

When Doug Bethea steps out of the house to remember his slain son, he doesn’t go to the cemetery on a Sunday afternoon. He heads out at midnight to the sidewalk where his son was shot and sits down before an array of candles. “You don’t know how it feels,” he told a group of aldermen considering restricting the memorials, “to have someone come and tell you you have to take that up and move.”

Bethea’s words came amid an emotional debate over the proper role of street memorials, the collections of stuffed animals, candles, photos and bottles that pop up on city sidewalks in homage to those who have died on the street.

Neighbors who live near these memorials in other parts of town say they have degraded quality of life for the neighborhood, bringing late-night loiterers, unsightly displays of graffiti, empty liquor bottles, and an unwanted reminder of violence and death.

Both sides came before the aldermanic Municipal Services Committee Thursday to discuss a proposed ordinance that would limit the existence of such memorials by requiring a permit and calling for their removal after 30 days. The ordinance, co-sponsored by Hill Alderman Jorge Perez and Hill Alderwoman Andrea Jackson-Brooks, was proposed this summer in response to neighbors who complained of loud groups convening around memorials. (Click here for a previous story with background).

The occasion featured a debate - and cultural “enlightenment” - over how different people mourn, who controls public space, and how neighborhoods heal from the wounds of gun violence.

The ordinance “was never intended to tell people how to mourn their loved ones,” explained Perez Thursday. But “if one way that you choose to mourn that individual infringes on the rights of others,” then the activity must be controlled.

Lt. Joe Streeto, a district manager in the Hill, testified the memorials have become gathering places for drug-dealers, sites of blasting music and raucous late-night drinking.

dav%3Aorch.JPG Gary Hogan, the deputy director of the city’s anti-blight agency, the Livable Cities Initiative, showed up with a stack of photos of memorials he said had faded into “blight.” Over time, he said, the stuffed animals get “wet and stinky,” bottles litter the sidewalk, and graffiti gets out of hand.

Picking up a photo of a memorial in his neighborhood, Fair Haven Heights Alderman Alex Rhodeen counted 35 liquor bottles and 40 feet of graffiti. The memorial had been at the spot at Judith Terrace and Quinnipiac Avenue for two years. Owners on whose lawn the array sat had been threatened when they tried to remove it, he said. The toll on the neighborhood was just too much.

Several Hill residents came with a similar frame of mind. John Dye lives a block away from 91 Rosette St., where someone was shot outside an elderly residence. Seniors are disturbed by being forced to look at a symbol of death each morning, he said. “They just want to have peace.”

A New Tradition

Bethea (pictured at the top of this story) says he’s looking for peace, too. His peace comes from grieving in the spot his son was slain last November, a place he feels intimately connected to. He says he tries to keep the memorial “neat” to respect those around it. The memorial has become “part of life,” part of the mourning process. “These families are hurting,” he told aldermen. “You’re telling me, ‘I’m gonna give you 30 days, get up, wipe your eyes and stop crying?’”

Hill Alderwoman Dolores ColÃ³n said she understood the need to mourn. But why not do so in a cemetery, as she and the “older generation” do?

“That tradition is gone,” replied Bethea. “It’s a black culture thing. We get together right there where he died. He’s not there, but his spirit is there.”

Cemeteries are “scary,” added teenager Ronald Huggins. The streets feel close to home.

ColÃ³n, the head of the committee, thanked them for the “cultural enlightenment.”

ColÃ³n also heard from family members of the late Aaron McCrea, whose memorial in Church Street South drew neighborhood complaints when it became the site of an all-day vigil on the recent anniversary of his death.

Gwendolyn McCrae (pictured), Aaron’s aunt, warned removing the memorials would cause friction between police the young people who gather there. “A lot of youths feel you’re taking something away from them. No matter how many memorials you remove, they’re gonna still put stuff back out there, no matter what.”

McCrae said her main question was, “If you’re going to take something away, what are you going to do to put something in their place?”

Newhallville Alderman Charles Blango suggested planting a tree or installing a plaque.

Alders also responded to feedback on a part of the ordinance that would require mourners to get a permit, at no cost, before erecting a memorial. Bethea balked at the idea: “You can’t sit here after losing your son to ask me to get a permit? At that time, you’re not thinking about no permit, you’re thinking about your son is gone.”

Aldermen agreed to make sure enough time is given to allow families to get a permit.

The committee took no action on the proposal, saying they would need more time to make sure the ordinance properly addressed the sensitive matter.

Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: Wake Up | October 12, 2007 9:20 AM

Why do you look for the living among the dead?

The ritual of mourning the dead of street violence does nothing more than create more problems for the neighborhoods. These memorials or momumentos mimic religious ritual without the religion or faith behind it, leaving them devoid of any positive transformative effect.

One must seriously ask the question, what public benefit does a permanent display have at a murder sight? It does not seem to have an effect on the violence.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | October 12, 2007 9:29 AM

I think 30 day is enough for those type of sites. I personally prefer the cemetery...the place where my mother was killed only brings me to the violence of it. A cemetery allows you to remember the person and who they are in a peaceful setting. I truly can feel the loses of these family's but as many suggested what about a tree or a small sign of some sort?? A tree was how I honored my mothers loss this summer. To be exact it was 2 Wooster St cherry, trees because she die on the 2nd of July on Wooster Street. And it is a far more beautiful way to remember a person.

Posted by: j | October 12, 2007 10:25 AM

Are you kidding me? I am not going to say what the process for mourning should be, because that is unique to the individual. However, I do feel there should be respect to others around you. If you want to honor someones death, honor it with respect for others. Pay it forward.
And lastly, don't say it's a black culture thing, that's just plain offensive. It's an urban culture thing, or a ghetto culture thing, but don't use the race card for your personal agenda, and don't speak for all black people.

Posted by: downtown dweller | October 12, 2007 11:32 AM

Every time I pass one of these "memorials" in my car all I think is, someone was murdered here, better speed up and get out of this creepy, crummy area! A respectful memorial that honors an old friend or loved one is NOT a pile of garbage on the side of the street. Plant a tree, set up a memorial spot in a park, visit the cemetary, make a shrine in your backyard, whatever. I would not want to be "honored" by a bunch of soggy stuffed animals, graffiti, cigarette butts, and litter. If this is a part of a culture, it's for shame... a culture that is so accustomed to murder that there is a tradition of roadside memorials? This is one piece of culture I would think people would gladly do away with.

Posted by: FAIRHAVEN DAVE | October 12, 2007 11:42 AM

While I'm sure these trash piles have become a "cultural sensitivity debate" only as a result of the media zooming in on an offhand comment of an impassioned fool who was feeling the spotlight...

If the arguement for cultural tolerance has to be made, perhaps all Hindus should be allowed to cremate loved ones by the Quinnipiac, Seiks should be allowed to keep the dead on the roofs of their apartment complexes, and Tibetans should be allowed to feed the dead to vultures at Sleeping Giant?

If you want to memorialize someone with a trash pile make a case for it's appropriateness, but leave culture out of it.

Posted by: dana b | October 12, 2007 4:13 PM

I agree with much was said above, and said very well.

On another note, these longterm memorials, like the one I drive by at Judith Terrace and Quinnipiac Avenue, remind me how public grieving seems to have become the norm. By announcing grief we hope to honor it and exorcise it from ourselves. But public expression of grief does this no better than private travail.

While deep, true grief is a long-term experience sometimes lasting a lifetime, it is a private and lonely one. No matter how many times you may want to tell someone how much pain you feel, you just don't after a while. Frankly, the world is not much interested in your pain, especially after you've told someone once and they've consoled you.

The drawn-out memorials seem to scream, "Look, look, this was my beloved! Honor my loved one! Feel my pain!" And yet, passerby and neighbors, friends and strangers, we cannot do more than acknowledge once the loss and move on. That's the pain of such deep loss -- it is yours, and yours all alone

Posted by: Chip Croft | October 12, 2007 4:49 PM

I feel that the Aldermen legislating the memorials is a great example of over-legislation. If there are drugs, loud music, trash, etc. around the memorials we have plenty of ordinances and staff to enforce that. Unless it has happened to your loved one or someone close to you, you have no idea how it feels to lose someone suddenly from gun violence. These memorials are at the place of the last split second where someone shockingly left this earth as a result of a violent act. They mean much more than a grave to those left behind, particularly their young friends - children, teens. Instead of wasting time legislating memorials the time should be spent on vigorous action to prevent gun violence. The Aldermen held hearing after hearing last year asking the kids what they need to stop the violence. The kids told them time after time they needed more after school activities and a place like the Q House. There has not been nearly enough done on this front and I suggest the Aldermen take action and spend a lot more money to accomplish these objectives. We need implementation to prevent the occassions for the memorials, not more meaningless legislation.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | October 13, 2007 5:39 PM

Chip Croft
It is not over-legislation. I feel and totally relate to these family's loses but these sites have become an earmark to "blight" and "bad part of town". And the people that live around those sites should not have to have the great distinction of advertising that there community is one that is in trouble.
Now with that said, your point is that these sites are just that a bill board saying something is wrong in this area "fix it", is a great argument.
So my view may have been swede a bit by that argument. And thank you for that. The reality is anywhere these sites are, is an area that needs help. Not sweeping under the rug. Although I choose a tree for my grief and I personally would not want such a memorial in front of my house at the least I can now understand the importance to some.

Posted by: by | October 13, 2007 11:48 PM

There is no "black culture" what so ever in these display of ... grieving or ... whatever one may want to call it. NONE whatsoever. Not in Black American culture. Not in African culture. It is dishonest to brig race into it.

The place where your loved one rest IS the place you go to do your grieving.

That is why we DO NOT, (as a society), allow you to bring you beloved one to rest in peace in your backyard so that you can continue the grieving on a daily basis.

To the cemetery!

Our children have to wait for the school bus looking at one of those ... "display of grief" every morning. IT IS JUST UNACCEPTABLE AND COMPLETELY SELFISH!

As far as I am concerned: This must not be allow permanently; NOT for three months; NOT for 30 days, NOT at all: The first sanitation sweep or garbage pickup MUST pick it up, period.

Trying political correctness will only brig a citywide memorial of shouting victims, traffic fatalities, heart attack in the street victims and the list goes on.

Give in and a someone will go to the aldermanic board to plead for burial of a loved one in the backyard.

Posted by: on whalley | October 16, 2007 10:55 AM

"Give in and a someone will go to the aldermanic board to plead for burial of a loved one in the backyard."

What's wrong with that? Why does anyone have to pay for some service or buy a zoned plot of land for burial when there's more than enough land in the backyard? The whole thing is set up like a big scam in it's pointless regulation and restrictions that create a product you are forced by law to purchase. Con men have gone to prison for less.

Sure, I shouldn't dump a corpse in a reservoir but what's the problem with burying a body on my own land? Oh, that's right! It's never our land and we don't really own anything. The state doesn't want to bury a body on it's land that it so selflessly allows you to live on as long as you succumb to the ever growing rent called property tax. Don't forget to tithe to the new Lord or you'll go to prison or worse yet simply be shot to death by the wonderful IRS tactical teams.

Have the great powers that be made home births illegal yet? Deemed them some sort of abuse and as such qualifies social workers to come take your child away to be raised by the state?

New Haven Independent

Sidewalk Memorials Debated

Comments

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed