« Part II: "Thefts of U.S. technology boost China's weaponry" | Main | The President's Speech »
June 27, 2005
Berlin Wall Memorial to be Razed
I'm not entirely sure what to make of these articles, but it's in The Washington Times this morning, and The Washington Post did a story on this last May. From the Times:
A privately built memorial to the victims of the Berlin Wall is to be bulldozed on July 4, when a lease on the property near the former Checkpoint Charlie runs out, angering backers of the project and conservative politicians.But the Socialist-led city government in Berlin has said that it is content to see the memorial taken down and there has been no move to prevent it from the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who is in Washington today seeking support for a permanent German seat on the U.N. Security Council.
...
The monument, privately financed by the Checkpoint Charlie Museum on an adjacent site, has proven extremely popular with visitors to the city, attracting thousands of people per week. But it has never been popular with the city's political establishment, which is dominated by a coalition of the former Communist Party (PDS) and the Social Democratic Party.
The article does not make clear whether this is a case of leftist sympathy for the Soviets, or it's twin, anti-anti-communism. I'll try to investigate this later when I have time and post more on it.
Update
Quid Nimis has the scoop:
It's (the memorial) sort of an urban art project (a very nice one) but the artist leased the space and the lease is up. The City of Berlin, in its infinite wisdom thought that July 4th was the perfect day to BULLDOZE A BUNCH OF CROSSES. Those Socialists, such comedians!There is actually an official memorial/museum for Checkpoint Charlie elsewhere. This seems like a very nice commemoration, very heartfelt on the part of the artist, and God knows that there are few enough artists wanting to commemorate freedom. Usually when artists and cities collaborate for art in public spaces, arrangements are made for dismantling the artwork, if it's to be displayed for a limited period of time. That kind of planning would have been especially appropriate in a case like this. As it is, a bank owns the lot and leased it to the artist for six months. When the lease was up, the bank asked her to clear the land and she sued to keep the memorial there. The courts upheld the bank's position, as they should have apparently. To use the sentimental appeal of the memorial to try to take property away from the rightful owner is rather sleazy.
thanks, bbmoe.
Posted by Tom at June 27, 2005 8:55 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/433
