Council refers proposed renaming of Veterans Memorial Park to committee after heated public comments

5768278 · July 7, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Councilmember Carter introduced an ordinance to rename Veterans Memorial Park in honor of Petty Officer Third Class John Viard Sr.; the proposal drew both opposition from veterans and support from residents who praised Viard's civic contributions. Council referred the matter to committee.

Councilmembers heard a lengthy public comment period on a proposal to rename Veterans Memorial Park to "Petty Officer Third Class John Viard Sr. Veterans Memorial Park." The ordinance was introduced by Councilmember Carter and the council voted to refer the matter to committee for further consideration.

Councilmember Carter introduced the renaming ordinance and moved to refer it to committee. Public speakers included veterans and other residents who gave conflicting views: several veterans and speakers urged the park remain dedicated generically to all veterans, saying renaming risks disrespecting other service members; other speakers, including employees and business associates of John Viard Sr., described his long‑term investments in the city and his philanthropic support for veterans and downtown revitalization and supported adding his name to the park.

Steve Smith, a local veteran, suggested alternatives to renaming the entire park such as a named walkway, benches, or a plaque recognizing Viard’s contributions. Dina Ferrer and Stacy Scalp described Viard’s financial and hands‑on support for local projects and veterans’ causes. General Brown, a Vietnam veteran, said removing or changing the veterans' designation would be "a courtesy of justice" against those who served.

The council did not vote on final adoption. Councilmember Carter moved to refer the measure to committee; a second was offered and the motion to refer carried with one dissenting vote (Miss Belsey voted no). The record shows the item will be studied in committee before any final action.