The city of Santa Fe and Mayor Alan Webber argued in a recent court filing that Union Protectíva de Santa Fé’s lawsuit seeking the restoration of the Soldiers Monument should be dismissed because it relies on an expired emergency order from June of last year.

The motion, filed Sept. 10, contends the mayor’s emergency order — which directed city staff to explore legal processes to remove the controversial Plaza obelisk as unrest roiled in the city last summer — was allowed to expire, no longer has legal standing and has since been replaced by the city’s Culture, History, Art, Reconciliation and Truth process.

The motion also argues any state preservation requirements regarding the area have not yet come into play because no recommendations for the site have been determined.

A lawsuit filed by Union Protectíva in June argues the city and Webber violated state preservation laws by issuing the order during a summer of cultural unrest and seeks an injunction on any further action at the site as well as a court order restoring the obelisk, which was destroyed by protesters last October.

The Plaza is a National Historic Landmark, and the monument is on both the state and national register of historic places as a contributing property to the Plaza.

The city’s CHART process is expected to lead to a list of recommendations not just for the area the obelisk once occupied, but the Don Diego de Vargas statue that sat in nearby Cathedral Park until it was removed by the city last year.

The state’s Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act requires a consultation process with the state historic preservation officer before public funds are spent on any programs that “use” a protected site. “Use” is defined in the statute as anything that results in an adverse effect, alteration or destruction of such sites.

The city has pushed back against the lawsuit in court filings.

In July, the city filed a motion to dismiss the case, in which it called the lawsuit “at best premature.” It argued that because no determination for the site has been made, the state’s Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act was not violated.

In response, Union Protectíva filed a rebuttal, stating that while CHART has not led to any recommendations, the mayor’s call for the obelisk’s removal prior to its toppling last October should have triggered the preservation act.

Kenneth Stalter, an attorney for Union Protectíva, said the city should have followed the law, while the city counters the lawsuit is an attempt to undermine state preservation requirements.

In response to an August letter sent by Webber requesting clarification on any potential recommendations for the site, state Historic Preservation Officer Jeff Pappas wrote that state law and the purpose of CHART do not necessarily align and a meeting between the state Cultural Affairs Department and the city should happen to make sure the city is following state requirements.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss the lawsuit was scheduled for Dec. 8, according to court records.

(17) comments

Santa Faith

I read that this Obelisk was/is a federal monument erected in honor of the many locals both Hispanic and indigenous who fought with the Union against the South. Its mind boggling that any administration would allow this to happen. ....... I am a progressive democrat but this is ridiculous. This is not liberalism. Is this what we fought for in the 60s and 70s?

Khal Spencer

If the emergency order was in place at the time, that was the rule. This request for dismissal smells bad.

Peter Romero

I always ask the question, "why now" its been there for ever and until some groups from other states made a big deal about it. H--l most in Santa Fe didn't even know it what it was about. Restore it and leave it as a reminder what not to do going forward. You can't change history !

Stefanie Beninato

"The city’s CHART process is expected to lead to a list of recommendations not just for the area the obelisk once occupied, but the Don Diego de Vargas statue that sat in nearby Cathedral Park until it was removed by the city last year." It would be great if this reporter did not further inflame the situation. CHART will look at all monuments in town--not just those two.

And IMHO if Webber had left the statute of DeVargas in the park and it was vandalized as the Cross of the Martyrs has been for many years, then the Union Protectiva and others would have blamed Webber as they did re Cross of the Martyrs' recent vandalism. NOTE I do not remember the kind of outcry that occurred for these past two vandalisms of the Cross of the Martyrs for other such acts there. BTW I am definitely in favor of replacing the obelisk and let it act as a teaching tool re changing values and tolerance.

Carolyn DM

Ugh!! If I never hear about this thing again, I'll be perfectly happy!

Emily Koyama

Yeah, well, ignoring it and hoping it "goes away" just ensures more of the same kind of BS happens again.

Stefanie Beninato

Sorry, Mike, but there have been worse including those born here.

Mike Johnson

You may be right, I have only been around since the '50s, I do hear many SF Mayors during the reign of terror of the original Santa Fe Ring were pretty bad. Maybe Webber/Egolf/Wirth, etc. are trying for a new low?

Vince Czarnowski

Webber caused this to begin with. I cannot wait to vote him out. My guess is there are many others who feel the same way.

Carolyn DM

Absolutely!!

Andrew Lucero

Amen Vince!

Barry Rabkin

"Restorative Justice" in this matter should mean the restoration of the Obelisk and placement of it back on the Plaza.

Mike Johnson

[thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

Andrew Lucero

[thumbup][thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

Emily Koyama

👍👍👍

Maria Bautista

Alan Webber, the FIRST VANDAL. MODELED THE BEHAVIOR, CAUSING PEOPLE TO BE TRIED, RUN THROUGH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND SPENT CITY MONEY TO COVER HIS ACTIONS. WEBBER SHOULD RESIGN.

Mike Johnson

[thumbup] Agreed, he is the worst kind of Mayor Santa Fe has ever or could ever have.

Welcome to the discussion.

Thank you for joining the conversation on Santafenewmexican.com. Please familiarize yourself with the community guidelines. Avoid personal attacks: Lively, vigorous conversation is welcomed and encouraged, insults, name-calling and other personal attacks are not. No commercial peddling: Promotions of commercial goods and services are inappropriate to the purposes of this forum and can be removed. Respect copyrights: Post citations to sources appropriate to support your arguments, but refrain from posting entire copyrighted pieces. Be yourself: Accounts suspected of using fake identities can be removed from the forum.