Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Block 174 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council over Block 174 burial ground dispute; resident proposes private marijuana consumption lounge
Summary
Several residents urged the council to stop what they called prolonged litigation and protect family burial sites in Block 174; the council noted ongoing court proceedings and said the matter remains with the courts. A resident also proposed a private, membership-based marijuana consumption lounge and was directed to staff for follow-up.
During the citizen participation portion, multiple residents addressed the council about the Block 174 burial ground on the north side of town. Dave Langston and others said the city had spent taxpayer money and questioned when the dispute over family graves would end. Langston said the city had “spent over a $100,000” and asked “when does it stop?”
Dwayne Holsclaw, who identified himself as a family member with relatives buried in Block 174, disputed the mayor’s characterization and said his family had long-standing ties to the plot and that his relatives are buried within inches of a contested marker. Holsclaw said his family’s deed is recorded (he referenced a courthouse book and page) and challenged assertions that he had filed lawsuits in his own name.
Mayor Greg Knutson and other council members responded that the city initiated litigation more than four years ago to determine ownership and whether the ground had been abandoned. The mayor said a circuit court had found earlier that parties who repeatedly claimed ownership did not, and that some individuals later intervened in the litigation; the council characterized the matter as ongoing court business and said the city would continue to follow the court’s determinations. The mayor also said Missouri law prevents removal of a monument if human remains are found within the statutory limit.
No formal council action was taken on the cemetery during the meeting; council members urged the parties to resolve issues through the legal process and said the city would let the courts decide ownership and related questions.
Separately in public comment, a resident identified as Fuzzy (Buzzy) Maddox proposed creating a private, membership-based marijuana consumption lounge. The mayor and staff said the council could not take up an unadvertised policy discussion in public session under the Sunshine Law; staff advised the resident to speak with city legal staff (Mister Winston/Catherine) to explore legal and ordinance questions. No decision on policy or permitting was made.
Why it matters: The Block 174 dispute involves claimed family burial plots, court determinations of ownership, taxpayer costs for litigation and potential changes to a historic burial area; residents and family members expressed strong emotions and concerns. The marijuana lounge proposal was a public idea with no staff or council action but was directed to staff for follow-up.
What’s next: The council reiterated it will follow the circuit court rulings and noted the litigation remains active. The marijuana consumption-lounge idea will be referred to city staff for legal review and ordinance guidance.
