Good morning, I'm probably going to catch H... for this, but has anyone considered reviewing other state's cemetery laws to see how Indiana's compare, and if the other state's are better, why not ask the legislature to consider using laws that already work elsewhere. One state, Washington, has an incredible preservation statute that allows the cemeteries to be adopted by non-profit cemetery corporation only for preservation and restoration purposes. For historic cemeteries no long being used for active interments and with no one else want the responsibility, it's perfect. Why is that with 50 states in this great union, they're all struggling to legislate statutes on the same subject and they're all so vastly different? It's a little like reinventing the wheel! You know, in the past, people would never have considered building their house or a barn on a cemetery. It just wasn't done. They had respect. What happened? Sue Silver CA

Sue wrote: > You know, in the past, people would never have considered building their house or a barn on a cemetery. It just wasn't done. They had respect. What happened? > Not wanting to detract from Sue's message about comparing laws of other states, but this statement has always bothered me. We hear it a lot, but it isn't really very true. Here in Bartholomew County, we have "rumors" that were written down by historians as early as 1930 that tell of barns in the county whose foundations were constructed of tombstones from a cemetery, now not even known exactly where it even was. A drywell "near Edinburgh" was lined with every stone from an old cemetery. A grave was discovered at the intersection of 2 roads near where a new Menards will be located soon, and all that was known about it at the time it was written down was that a witness who was a boy at the time it was unearthed and an 80 year old man when it was written down, still recalled how no one remembered or could even guess who it was or would have been, but a single button of a revolutionary war uniform was found with it. The Lewelling family cemetery was purposely plowed under by a farmer in about 1940 who did not even own the 1/4 acre it sat on. We know he did it on purpose because he actually dug a grave and laid the 4 remaining headstones in it, so they wouldn't keep popping up as he farmed it. He was the son of a state legislator at the time! While we are amazed at what we see happen in our times, I am thankful we have the hope of seeing in our lifetime the correction or at least the elimination of further such atrocities. I can't imagine how anyone, yesterday, today or 60 years ago could knowingly remove headstones from graves, but we know it happens. I am very glad we have this forum that allows us to voice our stories and learn from one another about this subject we have all chosen to become a part of. I would like to thank everyone who has replied to my recent question about the excepted cemetery status. I believe Jack has rightly pinpointed that we need to document these apparent loop-holes in our new codes and do what we can to see them corrected. I was pleased to see that one change that was made in 2001 to the laws written in 2000 was that it defined a little more for us what a "recorded cemetery" was. I agree again with Jack about the tax-break for cemetery owners. I read that one and could not even come up with a comparable situation that I knew of. Not just does it not clearly define what the landowners responsibilities are after declaring such a break, but most cemeteries not owned by a church or municipality are going to be less than one acre. Anyone who has ever had property surveyed, you know the possible high cost of having a surveyor come out and perform such a service, especially to the letter that is described in the new code, telling him exactly how much documentation is required. It doesn't seem worth it money-wise for them to even try to declare it for tax purposes. The other "loop-hole" that needs addressed is WHICH OFFICE HOLDER is responsible for catching these cemeteries. In general conversation, I have them all agreeing with me, but ask ANY of them and the AUDITOR, SURVEYOR, COMMISSIONER and RECORDER all shake their heads and say it is not their responsibility. The new law says the auditor shall require the deed to be written a certain way, but if they don't know there is a cemetery there, how will they know to require a special statement on the deed? Anyway, again, thank you for all of the input. Cris West Columbus, IN

On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Sue Silver wrote: > > You know, in the past, people would never have considered building their house or a barn on a cemetery. It just wasn't done. > They had respect. What happened? I think many people just don't care. Think about it, how do a lot of us know our homes are not build over Indian graves? The whole fact of the spirit lives on just means a body is a body. I know that the IU med school gets their fair share of bodies donated to medical science. I never really thought much about it, but that is a total 180 from the norm. I think it's more of a thought pattern that life is from brith till death, then after that who cares.