Judge: Pittsburgh officials have right to remove Christopher Columbus statue in Schenley Park

Two years after a group sued to try to keep the Christopher Columbus statue in Pittsburgh’s Schenley Park over city officials’ objections, an Allegheny County judge has thrown out the complaint, clearing the way for the statue’s removal.

A spokeswoman for the mayor’s office said they are reviewing the opinion and considering next steps.

Common Pleas Judge John T. McVay Jr. issued his opinion Friday, finding that the plaintiff in the case, the Italian Sons and Daughters of America, could not point to any case law supporting its position that it can limit the mayor or the mayor’s art advisory committee on what to do with city-owned monuments on city-owned land.

“The mayor is elected by the residents of Pittsburgh and entrusted with the duty of effectuating speech that reflects the will and ideals of the voters,” McVay wrote. “It is contrary to law and public policy to decide otherwise.”

The judge found that the plaintiff’s position was not supported by either fact or law, and instead the lawsuit “is an improper interference with the (City of Pittsburgh’s) right to speech.”

George Bochetto, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said Monday afternoon he had not seen the opinion.

“We’ll obviously take an appeal,” he said.

The 13-foot-tall bronze and granite Columbus statue was unveiled at Schenley Park in 1958, three years after City Council passed an ordinance allowing the statue to be displayed there.

However, in the summer of 2020, as government entities across the country reconsidered the display of numerous statues that they felt connoted systemic racism, the Columbus statue in Pittsburgh was targeted.

A petition filed with the city asked that the Columbus statue be removed because it said Columbus had a legacy of mistreating Native Americans.

Within weeks, former Mayor Bill Peduto recommended the removal of the statue at Frew Street Extension and Schenley Drive.

The Pittsburgh Art Commission also voted unanimously on Sept. 23, 2020, to remove it from public view.

The Italian Sons and Daughters of America filed suit and sought an emergency injunction to stop the removal on Oct. 9, 2020.

Pittsburgh officials ordered that the the Columbus statue be wrapped up in plastic early on the morning of Oct. 11, 2020, to protect it from being defaced.

The case has been pending since. The statue remains wrapped in plastic and in place, city officials said Monday.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that removing the statue violated a 1955 ordinance and the city did not hold a fair, public hearing over the statue’s removal.

In an amended complaint, they also claimed that Peduto improperly influenced the city Art Commission’s vote to remove the statute.

The city denied the allegations against Peduto, claiming they were meant to disparage him. The city also said that the entire case should be dismissed because the statue’s removal constituted protected government speech.

McVay’s 21-page opinion quotes extensively from U.S. Supreme Court precedent from a 2009 case out of Pleasant Grove City, Utah, in which that city rejected a proposal by a religious group to erect a monument in a public park there.

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the city had a right to regulate monuments in the park because they were a form of government speech.

“Permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent government speech,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

That opinion, McVay wrote, provided a roadmap for the case involving Pittsburgh and the Columbus statue. It “effectively gives the (City of Pittsburgh) free rein to remove the Christopher Columbus Statue,” which sits on city-owned property, McVay wrote.

McVay said “evidence collected by the City of Pittsburgh’s Art Commission overwhelmingly demonstrated that public policy has shifted since the time that the Sons of Columbus of America Inc. donated the Columbus statue in 1955.”

He added that if the public finds the city’s speech — in this case, the removal of the statue — objectionable, they can hold those officials accountable at the ballot box.

Although McVay ruled in favor of the city, he also wrote that the outcome of the dispute could still be a teachable moment for both sides.

“Nothing in this memorandum precludes the parties from working together to find resolution along the lines of a history center, museum or some private property location that attempts to present all historical perspectives,” the judge wrote. “There is nothing to preclude City Council and the Arts Commission from being involved moving forward to find a home for the statue other than a city warehouse.”