A tug of war over roadside memorials puts the county in the middle of a highly personal battle: Should they stay or should they go?
By JAY CRIDLIN
Published November 7, 2003
[Times photo: Skip O'Rourke]
Two round county memorial signs adjoin a personal one for a mother and son killed at Bloomingdale Avenue and John Moore Road in August 2001. The county signs came down briefly after the mother of the man awaiting trial on vehicular homicide charges protested.
BLOOMINGDALE - For more than two years, Pam Alvarez has made one Bloomingdale intersection the center of her universe.
Since her friend Jane Mark and Mark's son Britten Shores were killed in a car crash at Bloomingdale Avenue and John Moore Road, Alvarez has dedicated herself to memorializing them with roadside markers.
But in the last few weeks, two of those markers have been taken down.
Then put back up.
And, at some point, they'll come down again.
Since 2001, Hillsborough County has erected official roadside markers at fatal accident sites at the request of the victims' family and friends.
But the increased popularity of the markers and the personal conflicts they can cause have led officials to re-examine the county's memorial marker policy.
The county has, for the time being, reinstalled the two signs bearing the names of Mark and Shores, just weeks after removing them from the southwest corner of the intersection.
The signs were taken down in September at the request of Saria Garvy, whose 26-year-old son, Michael Hollash, is awaiting trial on charges of vehicular homicide in connection with the two deaths.
Police say that on Aug. 21, 2001, Hollash, who has a lengthly driving record, ran a red light on Bloomingdale and was driving in the wrong lane when his Mitsubishi slammed into Mark's Pontiac. Mark was 51; her son was 14. Hollash's trial, already delayed nearly 10 times, is now scheduled for December. He faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted.
The two small white circular signs read "Drive safely in memory of" followed by the names Jane Mark and Britten Shores.
Alvarez, who originally requested the signs a month after the accident, said she was shocked when a friend who lives near the site called to tell her the markers had been removed.
"I don't understand how anybody could be so callous as to call and have two memorial signs taken down in memory of two people that were killed," she said.
Garvy declined to comment on the signs or her bid to have them removed.
Richard Escobar, Hollash's attorney, called the signs "well intentioned" but said they, and other handmade signs, could affect the outcome of the criminal trial.
"That's a heavily traveled intersection," Escobar said. "For us to try to find a juror that has not seen those signs, that has not been affected by those signs, is going to be difficult."
Fairly new to Florida
Official memorial markers first appeared in Florida in 1998, when the state Department of Transportation began installing them along state roads to increase public safety awareness. Hillsborough County followed suit in 2001, lifting its guidelines directly from the FDOT.
Since then, only about 20 official markers have been erected on county roads, said county spokesman Steve Valdez. Each costs the county under $50 and can be installed in half an hour.
Valdez said the county removes the signs only if an adjacent property owner or homeowners association objects, or if the signs interfere with road maintenance or drivers' views of the road.
Other signs have popped up at the Bloomingdale intersection in the past two years, most notably a large rectangular sign posted by Alvarez and Mark's family. At various times, it has featured large photos of Mark, Shores and the crash scene, as well as pleas for eyewitnesses to come forward. The county signs are much smaller and simpler. The same standards apply to both county and handmade signs, Valdez said.
"Our maintenance units have respect for the ones that people put up," he said.
In most cases, Valdez said, roadside memorial signs don't attract much attention.
Complaints based on a personal connection to the accident are rare, he said. But it happens occasionally.
In those cases, there is usually a divide within the victim's family over the markers, he said. Some survivors want them; others do not.
In these highly personal battles between friends and family, Valdez said, the county is often placed in an awkward position.
"It is never a win-win situation," he said. "It's something that has to be worked out between the parties that are for and the parties that are against."
This case, however, was different. The complaint came from outside the crash victims' family, and neither side wanted to discuss the issue with the other.
Valdez said Garvy was probably within her rights to ask that the signs be removed, given her personal connection to the crash.
But once Alvarez complained, public works officials re-examined Garvy's request. Garvy lives less than a mile from the crash site, but neither her home nor her homeowners association borders the land where the signs are posted.
Valdez said the county concluded that Garvy's objections weren't valid - Alvarez's were.
"Technically, it shouldn't have been taken down," Valdez said. "It was determined that it really needed to go back up."
County operations manager Peter Brett said this case and the increasing popularity of the roadside markers have led public works officials to re-examine the county's policy on roadside markers.
Up for one year, period
Originally, every county sign was supposed to stay up for only a year, Valdez said. But because so few people had requested a marker - the county received only four requests, including Alvarez's, in 2001 - county officials decided to let them stay up longer.
That decision was made partly out of respect for the families of the victims, and partly because it seemed unnecessary to have county work crews maintain a handful of signs.
"They hadn't been enforcing it real strictly," Valdez said. "It wasn't a big deal."
Since then, the signs have grown in popularity. Eight requests came in during the first half of 2003, and Brett said the county receives at least one request a month.
"If we're going to start sticking these up everywhere, we've got to be tracking them," Brett said.
As a result, he said, the county has decided to strictly enforce the one-year limit on the signs. The signs for Mark and Shores had been up for nearly two years before being taken down; now that they're back up, Brett said they can stay for one year.
That is, unless Garvy complains to a higher authority, such as the County Commission, which could order the signs removed.
"With the county, there's always the possibility of exceptions on a higher level," Brett said. "Politics is always in the mix."
Garvy has not protested since the return of the signs. Escobar said Hollash's family might not object to the markers after the trial.
"If the county wants to put up a sign that says drive safely, that's fine," he said. "Let this case be tried and finished, and then the county can put up 50 signs if they like."
Alvarez said she sympathizes with Hollash's family. But she's willing to fight for the signs.
"That's all we have, is the memorial markers for Jane and Britten," she said.
