Minutes 06/25/1974 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

319 June 25, ~974 I'm sure there ~woutgrmever,~have Been any protest~against ~he Memo¥~al Day' showing of the flag if all of you had been aware that that flag honors all who fought for the South- black and white. And make no mistake; many, many of our black brothers we~t~ into battle for the S~uth beside their white people. Many died, and their graves were decorated and the Confederate fl~g is ~town to honor them. Ail are included. We make no distinction. So how could you withhold an~ man's £1ag from being flown in his hon~r? The g~ound o~ which our monument stands was graciously conveyed hy Portsmouth's City Council in 1876, who welcomed the petit~o~ of The Portsmouth and Norfolk £ounty Monument Association for them to erect (in the petition's ~ords) "at Court Street at the inter- section of High a monument to ~he brave men who died in t~e War Between the States".(See Council Records 1874-187~, page 333) The Ladies Memorial Aid Association ra~ed th~ money in pennies, nickels and dimes at a time when starvation and sordid privation; and poverty of so~called Reconstruction made the sacrifice the more menai~gful. Remember: There was no'Marshall P~an to restore the South; only the ~oot of economic ruin forced by our white brothers of the North. So a dime was terrific sacrifice in that~hour. These Ladies of the Memorial Aid Association l~ter became the Daughters of the Con- federacy. And for these 100 years the planning and~the maintenance of the monument has be~n a proud privilege. Why, even if the 1875 city council had not con~eyed the plot f~r the monument the perpetual use ~or 98 years would establish o~nership. the two Portsmouth Chapters of United Daught~s~d~th~ fathers owe us a P~BLIC apology for being so remiss and so rights." Confederacy feel that our city ~ude as to defame Memorial Day Motion of Mr. Early and seconded by ~4r. Smith, that the City Attorney to investigate of the ownership of plot of ground, either through dedication or adverse possession and report back to Council, was sdopted by unanimous vote.- Motion of Mr~ King and seconded by Mr. Smith, to allow the Daugh~e~sof the Confeder- acy be permitted to continue to honor their forefathers by ~isplaying 9r placing wreaths at the Confederate Monument, was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Early, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes Nays: Holley Letter reeeiYed from George R. Walker, 1749 Spratley Street, requesting to~ speak on the 'precedence and statutory requirements for past and future annual observances of Memorial Day ~n the City of Portsmouth". Mr. Walker spoke. 74-265 The following letter of appreication received from Mrs~ Richard Ivins, 801 Halifax Avenue, was read: "The family of Richard Ivins and I wish to express our most sincere appreciation for the very thoughtful tribute to him-for his work with tFe Parking Authority Commission. His mother, brother and I will cherish~ the resolutio~ for years to come." Motion of Mr. King and seconded by Mr. Smith, to be received as information, was adopted by unanimous vote. 74-266 - The following letter received from Kenneth B. Babb, 211 Mayflower Road, was read: "I request permission ~o appear before the P~rtsmouth City possible time to discuss a situation affecting me as a resident to the Park Plaza Roller Skating Rink." Council at the earliest and taxpayer with referenc Mr. Babb did not resoond to name when presented. Councilman Johnson stated that Mr. Babb called him and the above matter had been takem care of to his satisfaction. 74-267 - The following letter received from Elbert F. Woodley, President, Airline~ Tastee-~reez, Inc., 1204 Airline Boulevard, was read: "I am writing this letter in regard to the conversation we had on June 6, 1974, at 6:30 p.m. concerning, Griffin Street, running from Airl.ine Boulevard to Halifax Avenue and the city's right of way. Griffin Street as you saw is in a bad state of repair. I have contacted- Mr. Sopko about having some gr~vel put in the city's right of way, and he tells me that this is the responsibility of the property owner. He also tells me that there is a city ordinance that has been in effect since 1959, that states it is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain thim area. However, the city has been maintaining this right of way 1957, until approximately the last six to.eight months. I feel the amount of tax being paid by the business property owners on this street, that the right of way and the street should be in a better state of repair. Your prompt attention in this matter will be greatly appreciated."