The current proposed regulations for contextualization signs are an improvement over the earlier version, although I question the need for formal regulations at all. 

These signs cannot be one size fits all.  Each locality has a different history, a different make-up and a different flavor; the signs must reflect that.  The one I helped create here in Charlotte County, the first in the Commonwealth, is a perfect example.  It speaks in a Charlotte County voice to the people of Charlotte County.   These regulations will make it too boilerplate.

My suggestion would be instead of regulations, create voluntary guidelines.  We had a copy of your first draft regulations and used them as guidelines for the text of our sign.  We abided by most of it, and rejected a few things we didn't think necessary or pertinent.  That was sufficient.  If we had been forced to write it your way or go through your proposed process we might not have a sign.  Since ours went up in Sept 2023, we have been contacted by several localities interested in doing a sign;  I am afraid they will decide not to do one if there are too many hoops.

I understand what DHR is trying to accomplish with these regulations, but I think it is too much.  Guidelines could recommend an informal review by DHR -- we did that and got some excellent feedback -- but not mandate anything.  Unlike highway markers, I don't think DHR will be overrun with contextualization signs, you could review them and make suggestions.   I think guidelines would accomplish the same goals without the off-putting bureaucracy.

Speaking of our sign, I was surprised to see a sign in DeKalb, GA cited as an example by DHR instead of our sign (page 40 of 54 in the PDF - "see this marker in DeKalb County ...").  The one in Dekalb is very good but I think ours is better.  Ours does not tell people how to think about the monument, it gives both viewpoints completely based on facts and lets the reader to decide for themselves.  The DeKalb sign would never have been approved here in Charlotte County (I'm stunned it was in GA -- glad, but surprised).  Below is a link to the Cardinal News article about our sign; it contains a PDF link to the 2,400 word sign.  Perhaps this should be included as well as, or instead of, the DeKalb link.

Thank you for the chance to comment on this.  

Kathy Liston

https://cardinalnews.org/2023/10/04/why-all-virginians-should-read-the-new-historical-sign-in-charlotte-county/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Franklin%2C%20Obenshain%20clash%20on%20abortion%2C%20climate%2C%20guns%20and%20taxes&utm_campaign=Wednesday%2C%20October%204%2C%202023

I am writing to express my support for the new regulations mandated by Chapters 1100 and 1101 of the 2020 Acts of Assembly concerning the contextualization of war monuments and memorials. These regulations, developed under the guidance of the Board of Historic Resources, are a crucial step forward in providing local governing bodies with the necessary framework to thoughtfully and respectfully contextualize monuments and memorials dedicated to war veterans.

The importance of these regulations is underscored by the events that took place in Richmond, VA, where a dozen statues and other memorials were removed from various locations throughout the city. The Robert E. Lee statue, which was once the largest Confederate statue in the United States, was removed from Monument Avenue in 2021. Additionally, in response to widespread protests against racial injustice in 2020, Mayor Stoney ordered the emergency removal of the street's other Confederate monuments.

While these actions were driven by a need to address the pressing issues of racial injustice and public safety, the abrupt removal of these statues created significant controversy and division within our community. It was sad to see all these monuments and statues removed and gone after years of passing by them almost every day, but public safety must come first. We must learn from this experience and take proactive measures to avoid such a scenario in the future.

I commend the thorough approach taken in these new regulations, particularly the detailed guidance on the appearance, location, and ownership of the markers. This structured approach ensures that each monument or memorial is handled with the dignity and respect it deserves while allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of our shared history.

It is also important to recognize that every locality has a different history and unique ways of expressing that history. Therefore, these new regulations should be somewhat flexible to accommodate these differences. By allowing for local nuances and perspectives, we can ensure that the contextualization process is meaningful and reflective of the community's unique heritage.

The application requirements and approval process outlined in these regulations are essential for maintaining consistency and fairness across different jurisdictions. By standardizing these procedures while allowing for local flexibility, we can ensure that all communities have the opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue and make informed decisions about how to best honor and contextualize these historical markers.

As a resident of Richmond who deeply values our history and the contributions of our war veterans, I believe that contextualizing these monuments and memorials will provide a more inclusive narrative and foster a greater appreciation for the complexities of our past. We must recognize not only the achievements but also the broader historical context in which these events occurred.

I encourage the continued support and implementation of these regulations with somewhat of local flexibility.

Thank you!

Luke Kalda