It was reported that to move the monument would require destroying it and rebuilding it. The trees would be destroyed as well. Even if the monument were rebuilt nearby, the landscape would still be dominated by a big house pointing directly to drivers as they enter the community.
wrote: > It was reported that to move the monument would require destroying it and > rebuilding it. The trees would be destroyed as well. Even if the monument > were rebuilt nearby, the landscape would still be dominated by a big house > pointing directly to drivers as they enter the community.
I wonder which will be more beneficial to the community; letting the land go, thus destroying what's there and build another smaller monument close by or spending over $90k plus extra to make the land useful?
