Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WhalerBum t1_jad6sid wrote

Reply to comment by VCUBNFO in Richmond mulls historic cemetery takeover by CrassostreaVirginica

Permanent cemeteries are a weird American thing? That’s hilarious. There’s absolutely no way you’re that dull.

5

goodsam2 t1_jad91hg wrote

Cemeteries in most other countries actually operate differently. Basically you bury a person then after like 100+ years they would then move the body to a crypt. The new spot would then be paid for by someone to bury them. Therefore having a plausible working model of how to continue maintenance on the grave.

American cemeteries don't do this and so when the cemetery becomes full they basically run out of money and someone who is not and will never be buried there needs to upkeep it.

Edit: I think American cemeteries do some investments to keep it updated from the grave spot.

10

Cactuscouch757 t1_jadqxag wrote

Yeah this isn't really accurate. Cemeteries regularly disenter bodies of people who don't pay. They will send letters to next of kin and dig you up once no one answers. They then resell the plot. They even double stack caskets in some cases. Some cemeteries(hollywood) have perpetuity funds/investments, evergreen did not. You can still buy a plot in Hollywood today, it's most likely a used lot.

I still think burial grounds are the worst possible use of riverfront downtown land.

7

Ditovontease t1_jadvz5l wrote

I mean at least Hollywood is open to the public so that you can actually enjoy the river (when I lived in the fan I’d go there to read by the river). If it were private apartments instead only rich fucks get to.

5

gleepgloopgleepgloop t1_jadujci wrote

They do investing but there's no guarantee that the investments will pay off or won't be grifted at some point.

1

VCUBNFO t1_jad8tzi wrote

In Europe being buried in a cemetery is falling out of fashion.

Even for when it is, it is often the case they exhume old bodies to bury new ones.

What is the point of permanent graves?

0

Danger-Moose t1_jad9do5 wrote

> In Europe being buried in a cemetery is falling out of fashion.

The US, too. What does that have to do with a historic cemetery?

5

VCUBNFO t1_jadawgf wrote

> the final resting places of some of the city's most prominent residents, including Maggie Walker and John Mitchell.

I should have read the article, huh. It housing Maggie Walker certainly warrants more consideration.

I'd rather see that as a monument though. I think it would be better to exhume her and put her on Monument Ave or where AP Hill was, with a corresponding monument.

−18

Danger-Moose t1_jadbb5p wrote

She already has a monument at her grave site, and another monument where she lived in Jackson Ward. I'm in favor of leaving her where she actually, you know, wanted to be and not using her bones as some weird talisman to be showcased.

11

VCUBNFO t1_jadbu2f wrote

>not using her bones as some weird talisman to be showcased.

That's functionally what keeping the historic cemetery is.

5

Danger-Moose t1_jadi3xw wrote

At least that doesn't involve trotting them out to display in a largely white neighborhood.

3

WhalerBum t1_jadb58f wrote

No one’s asking to build a new cemetery to make room for new bodies. I don’t see how your point has anything to do with preserving a historic cemetery.

5

goodsam2 t1_jadck5c wrote

The old cemetery without new people has no money.

I think American cemeteries would get more money early on invest it and live off what was invested which if it failed then the grave runs out of money.

Like 08 crash and then now the graveyard can't mow the lawn but once a month.

2

localheroism t1_jadcqju wrote

I think it's good to have a physical space dedicated to grieving loved ones if they so choose but I think there are better ways to go about it.

5