Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fusion260 OP t1_ixfrhbr wrote

Because they apparently want the body and the monument moved to a venue of their choosing for free. Even if the city agreed, it’s all-but-guaranteed that both would get sued by some other party that doesn’t believe the public should be paying for the third relocation of someone’s remains after the city paid to maintain it for all these years.

That’s what’s so insidious about our legal system… seemingly unlimited rounds of lawsuits between unlimited parties can delay things indefinitely until someone decides they’re just going to do it whether it’s legal or not.

2

gamerthrowaway_ t1_ixhzl92 wrote

> Because they apparently want the body and the monument moved to a venue of their choosing for free.

So it's sort of interesting to me, graves have been moved in the past. One of the largest being when San Francisco passed a "no burials inside City limits" ordinances and then evicted most of their existing cemeteries to south of town in Colma to free up City land for building stuff on. IIRC, the University of San Francisco sits on top of a portion of that land now.

They said they would disinter them, transport them, and rebury them, but you had to cough up $10 (a few hundred in today's dollars). If you didn't pay, the mass grave'd that. The remains didn't get to stick around.

It's also why there are only like 2 or 3 cemeteries now; a tiny one at an old church, and the one at the fort (which is federal land). When I first heard that, I wondered what it would take for RVA to go that route and move Calvary and Hollywood.

2

Charlesinrichmond t1_ixfyn5o wrote

easy enough to indemnify out of it though, and I really doubt anyone would care once the descendants have it and the city is rid of it

0