Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Space Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cheyenne council rejects ordinance to ban private roadside memorials after months of public pushback
Summary
After an emotional public comment period and debate about grief, safety and enforcement, the Cheyenne council voted down an ordinance that would have restricted private memorial displays on public rights-of-way. Supporters had argued the measure addressed safety and maintenance; opponents said it would criminalize mourning and unduly burden families.
The Cheyenne governing body declined on March 9 to adopt an ordinance that would have restricted private memorials placed on public rights‑of‑way.
The third‑reading proposal drew a lengthy public comment period and sharp debate among council members. Opponents — including family members of traffic victims, an anthropologist and councilors who have viewed local memorials personally — said roadside tributes help grieving families and do not present the safety risk the ordinance’s proponents described.
Chelsea McCort, a Ward One resident who testified at committee, cited academic studies and local experience to argue memorials are not substantially distracting and urged time‑limited, less punitive alternatives such as a 30‑day removal process with item storage and family notification. “It just needs modification,” she said in her testimony.
Council members who opposed the ordinance said they were sensitive to grief and worried the code’s fines and criminal penalties (tied to the city’s general penalty limit) could be applied in ways that would harm residents for private mourning practices.
Supporters of the measure, including some council members, said the city must protect public right‑of‑way, ensure consistency and avoid creating de facto, unregulated occupation of public property. John Brody, city attorney, explained the city’s general penalty structure and noted courts rarely impose maximum statutory sentences but that the code must be enforceable and clear.
After public testimony and council debate, the ordinance failed on third and final reading and will not be codified. Council members said they would continue to consider policy options — including possible narrower time limits, storage procedures and clearer guidance — rather than the wholesale ban that was before them.
What happens next: Staff and council members signaled interest in drafting less punitive, more specific rules (for example, a time‑limited display policy and procedures for complaints and item retrieval) and bringing a revised proposal back to committee.
