|
In dissonant contrast with today’s observance of Veteran’s Day, Community Board 1 (CB1) recently grappled with the question of whether an intersection in Tribeca should be named in honor of James D. McNaughton, who, on August 2, 2005, at age 27, became the first New York City Police officer to be killed in action while serving in “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
Officer McNaughton came from a family of police officers and veterans. His father is a retired Transit Police Officer, who had served in Viet Nam. He was named for an uncle who was both a military veteran and a police officer. Both his step-mother and fiancé (to whom he became engaged weeks before his death, while back in the United States on leave) were each still serving as police officers.
In 1996, he enlisted in the Army, and served for five years, earning an honorable discharge in 2001, and subsequently joining the Reserves. In July of that year, just weeks after leaving the Army, he entered the NYPD, graduating from the Police Academy in December, and being assigned to its Transit Bureau, which patrols the New York City subway system.
Even as he began his police career, Officer McNaughton continued to serve in the U.S. Army Reserve, assigned to the 306th Military Police Battalion, part of the 77th U.S. Army Regional Readiness Command, based at Fort Totten, in Queens. He was called to active duty in October, 2002, when his unit deployed to Iraq. After more than a year, he rotated back to New York. But in 2004, his unit was activated once more, and Officer McNaughton returned to Iraq. On this second tour, he volunteered for what was regarded as especially dangerous duty, training Iraqi police officers, because most of the other men in his unit who were qualified for the task had wives and young children at home, while he did not.
On August 2, 2005, he was in Camp Victory, on the outskirts of Baghdad Airport, climbing a ladder into a guard tower that overlooked a compound full of prisoners. As he ascended the tower, Officer McNaughton was struck by a sniper’s bullet, and killed.
Shortly after Officer McNaughton’s death, then-NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly commented that he, “embodied the motto of the NYPD: ‘fidelis ad mortem,'” which translates as, “faithful until death.” In the years since Officer McNaughton died, he has been honored in multiple ways. In Suffolk County, a road near his home town of Centereach was renamed in his honor in 2010. And last year, his name was carved into the stone wall of the National Law Enforcement Officer’s Memorial in Washington, D.C.
More recently, Officer McNaughton’s colleagues at the headquarters of Transit Police District 2, headquartered within the Canal Street subway station in Tribeca, began a push to have the intersection of West Broadway and Lispenard Street “co-named” in his memory. (Co-naming is an honorary geographic designation in New York, under which a street or intersection retains its original label, but a second sign is also attached to a nearby lamp post, denoting the additional, commemoratory name.)
More than 200 police officers signed a petition urging that the intersection, the location of the entrance they pass through each day to access their command post, be renamed in honor of Officer McNaughton.
Decisions about co-naming streets are ultimately made by the City Council. But, as a procedural matter, they come first before the local Community Board within which the street is located, so that the panel can issue an advisory opinion. Thus, the question of co-naming West Broadway and Lispenard Street came before CB1 in October. It first appeared on the agenda of CB1’s Transportation Committee on October 2, which unanimously endorsed the proposal. Next, it came before CB1 as a whole, on October 23.
The discussion began with a summary by Reggie Thomas, chair of CB1’s Transportation Committee, who recalled that, “we had a presentation by some of Jimmy’s colleagues from Transit Bureau, who came out in support. This is one of those street co-naming proposals that we firmly believe in, and nobody opposed it.”
This introduction was followed by a vigorous debate, in which CB1 members voiced competing priorities. Susan Cole began by saying, “I having nothing but pride for this young man, but we’ve been very clear about co-naming. We have refused to do this for abolitionists,” she added, in a reference to proposals in 2006 and 2009 to rename the same intersection for David Ruggles, an African-American opponent of slavery who led more than 600 former slaves to freedom, and who once lived in Lispenard Street. (CB1 rejected that proposal.) “I’m not against a plaque or dedicating a tree, but co-naming would set a terrible precedent,” Ms. Cole said. “We should do something, but not a co-naming.”
Marc Ameruso countered that, “in other cases, plaques have been more appropriate, but we shouldn’t be against co-naming in all cases. As a veteran of Afghanistan, I’m in favor of this.”
Pat Moore, who chairs CB1’s Quality of Life Committee, noted that, “we did decide as a board that we’re against co-naming, and we turned down the Ruggles proposal, even though he lived on Lispendard. If we didn’t do that, why are we co-naming for someone who didn’t live there?”
CB1’s vice chair, Paul Hovitz, asked, “would the Transportation Committee and Officer McNaughton’s family accept a plaque? Co-named streets don’t tell a story or honor the person, but a plaque accomplishes those goals. So a plaque might be better.”
Tammy Meltzer, chair of CB1’s Battery Park City, said, “co-naming is not best way to honor someone who has lived a life of service, but every single subway entrance now has an electronic component. In this age of technology, it would be great if every entrance to that subway station had a digital banner across it honoring him in greater depth. That would be a way to convey information.
Bob Townley said, “we need to view things in the context of local community. In this case, the local community is our precinct and that should be our framework. It is important that we act a community, and support the community that this man was a part of. Let’s give them what they’re asking for, which is nothing compared to what happens every day to police.”
Mr. Townley continued, “this is not setting a precedent, and if the abolitionist was turned down, we should bring that up again. McNaughton was fighting for the same thing the abolitionist was fighting for. We need to honor both. We should not get technical now, but instead support this proposal and then look at these things in the future in a different way.”
Alice Blank, who chairs CB1’s Environmental Protection Subcommittee, said, “I live on Lispendard Street and remember the proposals for David Ruggles. But I would feel uncomfortable naming this for any individual, whether David Ruggles or James McNaughton.”
She added, “this officer was an unbelievably important hero. But there are not enough streets, or room on these street signs. And there’s no end in sight, especially with all of the people who died on September 11. So I support finding another way.”
“Trees are one example,” she observed. “There are hundreds of trees in Tribeca, and they could have plaques in front of them. But co-naming is troubling, because when do you say no?”
Laura Starr said, “I didn’t know we had a policy about co-naming streets, and would like to know what it is.”
Mr. Thomas replied, “the criteria used by the City Council are the individual must be deceased, and the proposal is based on the importance of his or her contribution to the community or the area in which the sign is proposed.”
Judith Weinstock said, “it sounds like some bad decisions were made on this issue a few years ago, but we shouldn’t repeat those mistakes. “I fully support co-naming and fully support our Transit Police officers and the NYPD.”
When the roll was called, most CB1 members who voted against the proposal voiced support for some alternate form of commemoration. Ms. Blank said, “no, with great respect to the McNaughton Family.” Roger Byrom, chair of CB1’s Landmarks Committee, said, “no, but we should find another solution to recognize his contribution.” Ms. Cole said, “no, but we should find another solution.” Mr. Hovitz said, “no, but I’ll contribute to a plaque.” Jeff Mihok said, “no, with condolences to the McNaughton family.” In the end, the measure failed to carry, with 12 members voting in favor of the proposal, and 21 voting against it.
Afterward, CB1 chair Anthony Notaro said, “I must stand behind all resolutions that are voted on by the board. That’s my role, so I must stand behind this one, too. But speaking personally, I voted to approve the co-naming for several reasons. Mostly because this young man bravely and selflessly gave his life, both in our neighborhood and on a foreign battlefield. I respect and honor the person who steps into the arena, whether they are a long-ago abolitionist or a 27-year-old man who could have been the son or brother or spouse of any of us. Some acts are bold and some are quiet and unsung. Some change the course of history. But we all live in the arc of history, and we all should value sacrifice.”
He continued, “I believe it’s the least I can do, rather than simply saying, ‘thank you for your service.’ He and his family deserve this. We may never have enough streets to co-name for all who deserve it. So I do understand how others voted: How do you assess who we co-name streets for? But everyday, there are millions of brave actions that we never know about and I find it valuable to be reminded.”
Margaret Chin, who represents Lower Manhattan in the City Council, said, “on Veterans Day, we honor those who have served in our Armed Forces, as well as the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. One of those heroes is Police Officer James D. McNaughton — who not only served our City, but our country as well. To honor his memory, and the wishes of his family and colleagues at NYPD Transit District Two, it is my hope that the Community Board will reconsider this co-naming application and give Officer McNaughton the public designation his sacrifice and service to our City deserves.”
Ms. Chin may have the last word, because it is the City Council that makes the final determination about proposals to co-name streets.
Matthew Fenton
|
|
