Moving cemetery to build a house.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk


He knows there's an old cemetery on that property. If he can't live with that, then he should find another piece of property. Those folks were laid to rest there over 150 years ago, and that's where they should stay.

Exactly he is really just stirring up [censored] to prove a point. He's probably a Dam Lawyer.
wink.gif
J/K
 
I suppose my Poli***s on the land rights issue are I don't want some "outsider" coming in and messing with me and my established plot of land. If I have the legal max of two unregistered cars on my land, that is how I want it to always be.

We get these "historical preservation" busybodies who ban vinyl siding etc on a house-to-house basis. They literally do not set up a "historic district" like downtown but rather have authority to cruise around picking nice looking houses and "condemning" them to an additional burden of being historical.

This guy's POV seems to be an outsider trying to mess with local tradition. It's like some jerk buying property on a rural highway then lobbying for a lower speed limit b/c his kids play in the yard.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
When the dam was built to water one of the power stations that I work at, they relocated an entire cemetry to higher ground.

It's an interesting place to visit...feels way more creepy than walking through a regular one.

Idiot should just pick another location for his house.


Bit ironic that the lake I spoke of ,built in the '30s had to have a cemetery moved also.

In Arkansas, it'd cost way more than most individuals could ever afford to move even a small cemetery. Owning land with a graveyard is quite different than normal, as the owner must provide access, and an unlocked gate, to any visitors wether kin or not.

Bob
 
Yep, happened in my hometown during the 50's as well. They enlarged the lake by building a dam and had to move a whole cemetery to higher ground. Lot's of prominent town founder graves were buried there, but they still moved em all. Seems to have worked out all right. (IMO based on how the newer cemetery looks. I was born 30 years after this had been done.)

I think moving graves is fine as long as it's done in a professional, respectful manner. And the remains are placed somewhere appropriate (another cemetery, scenic overlook, etc).

Then again, what I'm referring to was a public city project for the greater good of a whole community. Not just some over-protective PC yuppie father who doesn't want his kids to see gravestones.
 
Last edited:
another anecdote (or two) on the subject.

A former workmate has a property, on a highway, which those of us still in the business travel daily, or many times daily between sites. It's got a sandstone house on it about 120 years old give or take, and another house built in the affluent 60s (my estimates, but prolly close).

The sandstone house was corrugated iron, and very not original. The original roof having been replaced a few times in it's century of being. The blackberry bushes growing out of the non existent windows were probably not there during its occupancy either.

The newer house is kept in brilliant repair, with garden and yards kept tidy, neat wood pile, sheds etc.

Driving past one day and my (former) boss said "Somebody should make him do something with that house...it's heritage listed you know"...heritage listing means the (sandstone) house cannot be demolished, and if refurbished only to heritage (and bloody expensive) conditions.

My response was "how much are you willing to contribute to doing the old place up ?"

Boss' response "it's not my responsibility to pay for it. It's heritage...He owns the place, and someone should make him do that place up !"

Happy to decide what other people have to spend to make him happy.

Another heritage listed place near here got backed into by an unmanned bulldozer during lunch break while clearing the area for the new house...terrible accident. Newspaper article. Move on.

But gravesites and headstones hold a much greater historical value than a house made of sandstone at the side of a highway.
 
Well, considering that the graves of many of my relatives were destroyed, and the stones used for roadbed... I don't know that I particularly feel one way or another. Does it matter if it was the Russians, the Poles or a Vermonter? Gone is gone. If you are religious, it is dust to dust and victory, if not, then we're all here by chance mixing and reaction anyway.

So, not to venture into RSP, but that's how I see it. Time moves on, life moves on, move with it or be left behind.

And yes, the graves of my great grandmother, great uncle and grandfather, all of whom I knew and were very close with, are good to visit, but unfortunately I do not see the connection, since they are in a better place and going to their graves will not make me less sad or more connected to them. I cannot imagine wanting their graves near my home, regardless, let alone someone else's graves near my home.

To me, the bigger injustice and sadness is that given all the available homes about, let alone decreipt buildings in inner cities and even towns and out of town areas, that something else couldnt be used as a domecile, rather than destroying otherwise beautiful and open farmland. People should be more up in arms about the sad state of many areas, cities, and towns, and at the people who let these places get that way (let alone the destruction of open space), than at some guy that wants to put a new home in a stupid place where there is really no good reason (IMO) to put it.

Maybe Im just coled and careless...

JMH
 
Last edited:
In my state, any burial site has to be registered to make it a cemetery. The article said those graves are registered, so here it would be considered a cemetery, or, possibly, an abandoned cemetery.

An abandoned cemetery is one which has 1) no established permanent maintenance fund, 2) is not suitably maintained and preserved as a cemetery, and 3) in which there has been no internment for seven years.

Here, you probably cannot be stopped from moving bodies from an abandoned cemetery if you follow the proper legal process. It looks like people are maintaining the graves, so it does not seem abandoned.

There is right and there are rights. I wouldn't move graves regardless of the right to do so. That's one of those things that you should just accept when you buy the land, or go elsewhere.
 
Originally Posted By: Win
3) in which there has been no internment for seven years.


I think you mean "interment," unless we are talking about a penal colony's final resting place...
48.gif
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
And yes, the graves of my great grandmother, great uncle and grandfather, all of whom I knew and were very close with, are good to visit, but unfortunately I do not see the connection, since they are in a better place and going to their graves will not make me less sad or more connected to them. I cannot imagine wanting their graves near my home, regardless, let alone someone else's graves near my home.


IMO, older graves are as important as history texts, and the history behind them is largely unwritten.

FIL is heavily into family history, and has learned a lot by travelling to graves

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
To me, the bigger injustice and sadness is that given all the available homes about, let alone decreipt buildings in inner cities and even towns and out of town areas, that something else couldnt be used as a domecile, rather than destroying otherwise beautiful and open farmland.


Yep, the most fertile land on the Eastern seaboard of Oz is now lawn and concrete.
 
I'm glad you pointed that out, morbidman ..oops ..mori. I don't really see the difference (surface view) between the two ..but I see that the proper end of life does. With one you're put some place for a given period of time ..typically against your will..the other, as well ..it's just longer. With both you are confined ..one while you're alive ..the other posthumous. Neither of them I can see being sought by the people subjected to either.
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: Win
3) in which there has been no internment for seven years.


I think you mean "interment," unless we are talking about a penal colony's final resting place...
48.gif



33.gif
Dang. He's right. Interment, not internment. I had to go look up the statute: A.C.A. 20-17-905(e)(3).
 
Hear the one about the couple who worked at a sewage plant ?

one day, in particularly nasty weather, the wife slipped in. The husband, struggling to save her slipped in also.

They are now inturd side by side.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'm glad you pointed that out, morbidman ..oops ..mori. I don't really see the difference (surface view) between the two ..but I see that the proper end of life does.


"interment" comes from "in terra" (in the ground).

"internment" comes from "internus" (deep, inward) which has etymologically nothing to do with "terra."
 
(visions of Han responding to 3PO as he interrupted his attempted seduction of Leah when he said, with excitment, "Sir! I've isolated the blabla power coupling!!")

Thank you.... Thank you very very much...

(or, in another scene)

I'm glad you're here to tell us these things..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom