Nevadans give mixed opinions on roadside memorials at hearing

Dozens of Nevadans have offered their opinion on roadside memorials via e-mail, telephone and letters, but only seven showed up in person to sit with a stenographer and have their thoughts recorded during Thursday's hearing aimed at determining state policy.

And those opinions were mixed.

"I'm against any form of roadside memorial," said Charles Carter of Carson City. "I lost my father in a public right-of-way, and I didn't put up a memorial. I'm annoyed by other people forcing their grief on me. To me grief is private. I go to the cemetery."

Carter was in an accident and his father suffered a heart attack as the two tried to recover Carter's motorcycle. He admits he's revisited the California spot "a couple of times."

"I went there to get in touch with his spirit," he said.

Delores Sherman has the opposite opinion. As co-leader of the Carson City Chapter of Compassionate Friends, Sherman is all too familiar with the evolution of grief.

"I can understand where people who haven't experienced the death of a child would say 'I don't want to see a memorial,'" she said. "People don't want to think about death. I think memorials are healing."

Sherman, whose 17-year-old son was killed in an accident in Winnemucca in 1985, supports the idea of standardized markers put at the spot of a fatal accident at the request of families, but believes people should be tolerant of the impromptu memorials that spring up because of grieving friends.

Thursday's hearing was the third of four across that state in which the Nevada Department of Transportation spotlighted its draft policy to regulate roadside memorials. Turnout was similar at hearings in Elko and Reno, said Felicia Archer, NDOT hearing officer.

The decision to regulate markers came about after an unnamed Reno man threatened a lawsuit if an 8-foot-tall cross to a slain South Lake Tahoe girl was not removed from the roadside along Highway 50 West two miles west of Carson City.

Three alternatives have been offered by NDOT, and those who came to the meetings were asked to pick which option they preferred.

The first option would allow roadside memorials and remove them "if they represent a hazard or are inappropriate in size and design."

The second would allow standardized roadside markers created and installed by NDOT. The third would be to ban all roadside memorials.

If standardized markers are to be placed, Richard Nelson, assistant director of operations said, it doesn't mean crews would head out with a pickup truck and pluck memorials from the ground.

"There's a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. We are going to try to put as much effort into doing this the right way," he said. "This is a work in progress."

Archer said the comments will be reviewed and considered when writing the formal policy.

"At this point we are not leaning towards any particular option," she said. "That's the whole purpose of these meetings. We will then weigh what's the best for the state."

Written comments will be accepted until 5 p.m. April 9. Send comments to Richard Nelson, Nevada Department of Transportation, 1263 S. Stewart St., Carson City, NV, 89712. Comment may also be submitted online at: www.nevadadot.com/public_involvement. The last meeting will be in Las Vegas on March 31.

Contact F.T. Norton at ftnorton@nevadaappeal.com or 881-1213.