Cemetery Rules Review
Online Comments from September 6 through October 11, 2022
Please share your comments on subsection 14.4.4 Use of Cemeteries Generally.
Please share your comments on subsection <strong>14.4.4 Use of Cemeteries Generally</strong>.
H I agree with wording events, as long as it is defined better. a family reunion in the area that comes to visit an ancester could need premission as this is loosly written. lets cover tours, if they are large groups and the guide is being paid for their service, you bet. I do take exception to the broad language that would make it ileagle for me to walk a girl scout troup or any other group of 15 or less persons and share with them the many stories that the site holds. This is a public space. The public has a right of asembly and a freedom of speech, to give the cemetery operations sole discreation as to who has the right to conduct a free public tour is absurd, no doubt they will want to preview any content or programs that may take place. At rest in Oakwood in a journlist who faught mccarthy and is band (are you now or have you ever been a communist) the operations people are not on site during hrs. they do not challange the dog wakers, ever this is just another rule they will selectivly enforce if they feel like it
Reply7 Agree2 years agoWhole heartedly agree about dogs, on leash or not. The cemetery is not the place for peoples pets to relieve themselves or run loose. Through out the City of Austin there are spaces designated for ‘authorized staff only’, including City Hall. Not sure why there would be an exception in any of cemetery spaces?
Reply6 Agree2 years agopeople bring their dogs into the cemeteries ALL THE TIME !! just the other day two large dogs came running up to me. That could have been dangerous given some dogs' predispositions... THE CITY NEEDS TO DO A BETTER JOB ENFORCING THE NO PETS RULE. Patrol more frequently and increase fines. (and I say this as a dog owner myself...)
Reply6 Agree2 years agoLook, I am an animal lover, and I understand our attachments. In this case, I agree that pets should not be allowed. Humans don’t always control their animals, nor do they always pick up after them. We have issues in our neighborhood when owners walk their dogs, the dogs do their business, and the human just leaves the poop...and I’m in a great neighborhood. Then there’s the potential for barking. Rather, I prefer to enjoy and protect the birds, bees, lizards and other creatures that make their homes in our cemeteries. Obviously, legitimate service animals get a pass.
Reply5 Agree2 years agoPlease share your comments on subsection 14.4.6 Space Holder Rights and Responsibilities.
Please share your comments on subsection <strong>14.4.6 Space Holder Rights and Responsibilities</strong>.
(B) An owner must notify Cemetery Operations before repairing memorials and mausoleums.
The lots are private property that have belonged to families over generations. The City has taken or assumed responsibility since 2013? I am not going to ask the City for approval before wiping off my mother's or father's , or aunt's or etc... headstones.
Reply9 Agree2 years agoThe lots are private property that have belonged to families over generations. The City has taken or assumed responsibility since 2013? I am not going to ask the City for approval before wiping off my mother's or father's , or aunt's or etc... headstones.
Re: section (B) above :
simply _cleaning_ a monument should NOT require prior aproval by the city _unless_ the monument is sufficiently old and/or weathered that cleaning would damage it irreparably.
also, it would be nice, if under section (B) above, the city was required to respond within a certain number of days (10 or so) giving either its approval or reasons why it was not given, and if more than the required number of days lapses, the parties have the right to undergo their intended repairs without city approval. As it is now, there is no language stating how long the city has to respond.
Re: section (D) :
this sounds rather heavy handed, in that the heirs of a monument that their great grandparents erected over a century ago, are now responsible for the cost to maintain, repair, or even replace a monument they had nothing to do with originally...
*** Is that what is intended by the language in this section?? ***
If so, then given the cost of bot h labor and materials have increased __astronomically__ compared to when these monuments were originally constructed, the cost to repair or replace them would likely be well beyond the financial means of their current heirs, so it seems unreasonable for the city to undetake repairs and the bill the descendents _after the fact_. If this is the intent, then this need to be reconsidered, ideally in dialogue with the people/stakeholders who fall within this category.
Reply8 Agree2 years agosimply _cleaning_ a monument should NOT require prior aproval by the city _unless_ the monument is sufficiently old and/or weathered that cleaning would damage it irreparably.
also, it would be nice, if under section (B) above, the city was required to respond within a certain number of days (10 or so) giving either its approval or reasons why it was not given, and if more than the required number of days lapses, the parties have the right to undergo their intended repairs without city approval. As it is now, there is no language stating how long the city has to respond.
Re: section (D) :
this sounds rather heavy handed, in that the heirs of a monument that their great grandparents erected over a century ago, are now responsible for the cost to maintain, repair, or even replace a monument they had nothing to do with originally...
*** Is that what is intended by the language in this section?? ***
If so, then given the cost of bot h labor and materials have increased __astronomically__ compared to when these monuments were originally constructed, the cost to repair or replace them would likely be well beyond the financial means of their current heirs, so it seems unreasonable for the city to undetake repairs and the bill the descendents _after the fact_. If this is the intent, then this need to be reconsidered, ideally in dialogue with the people/stakeholders who fall within this category.
Under Section 713.011 (Maintenance Of Municipal Cemeteries), Texas Health and Safety Code, a municipality that operates or has jurisdiction over a public cemetery must maintain the cemetery in a condition that does not endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or welfare. This includes leveling or straightening markers or memorial. The law is very clear, it is your LEGAL DUTY to level or straighten memorials. There is nothing under state law that authorizes you to dodge your legal duty by imposing it on the space holders or heirs. Nor is there anything in state law permitting you to transfer the cost to space holders. You have admitted in the past that your record keeping is so poor, you don't even know how to contact many space holders. So I guess you answer is to simply let the grave takers tumble like dominos rather than follow state law.
You have a LEGAL DUTY to under STATE LAW maintain the cemetery in a condition that does not endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or welfare, not some option or right you can choose to exercise when you see fit.
Reply6 Agree2 years agoYou have a LEGAL DUTY to under STATE LAW maintain the cemetery in a condition that does not endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or welfare, not some option or right you can choose to exercise when you see fit.
B & C you are aware that at Oakwood cemetery the lots were sold as private property and not a right of scuplture, everyone will agree that the monuments are the private property of the families that placed them there. the issue is with a cemetery as old as Oakwood you are 6 and 7 generations removed form the person at rest. the current generation in most cases are not willing to spend monies to correct things. you know this. the industry has strict process to use a space that was orgionly purchsed by another. you do not follow that. you have a person sign a release and hold harmless the city of austin, and the persons signs accecepting responsibility without ever provideing you with any legal documentation on how they are the sole legal owner of the lot. the State of Texas , nor the city of Austin ,does not have any laws on the books that address abandoned cemetery property. the monument 50 years or older are protected by state law, you can not just replace them if you feel like it look to the cemetery master plan. section D should address monuments that "pose a risk to the public" and that standrads is not in writting anywere State law allows basically anyone the right to care for a grave under "reasonable rules" adopted by the city, you will not try to adopt a 5 page form and extort $80.00 to review a request as hyou have in the past. it will come back as it did before to bite you.
Reply3 Agree2 years agoNeed reconsideration about the policy of removing all loose benches. If they’re in bad shape, of course remove them. But there are many older and disabled/less-abled folks who need to sit when they are visiting. It’s good to have some loose benches available that can be shared for such times, then replaced at their site. If it is a matter of difficulty when mowing, then perhaps some benches can be placed in a few designated areas of each section, to be shared.
Reply2 Agree2 years agoPlease share your comments on subsection 14.4.7 Interments.
Please share your comments on subsection <strong>14.4.7 Interments</strong>.
Re: section (A) above--
this should be amended to say that the Owner __or their Assignees (such as a mortician and/or funeral home staff)__ are responsible for.... (etc) This is generally handled by the funeral home is it not? It should not be a requirement that is specifically placed upon the Owner, especially during the bereavement period after a loved one's death...
Reply1 Agree2 years agothis should be amended to say that the Owner __or their Assignees (such as a mortician and/or funeral home staff)__ are responsible for.... (etc) This is generally handled by the funeral home is it not? It should not be a requirement that is specifically placed upon the Owner, especially during the bereavement period after a loved one's death...
Loading more report objects...
there are other terms you use in the proposed rules that need to be defined such as event and tours
What about tours?