From Staff Reports 

Not too much should be conjectured from the North Carolina Supreme Court’s recent order for the two opposing sides — in the case to decide the fate of the Vance Monument in the heart of downtown Asheville — to present oral arguments on Nov. 1 in Raleigh, according to Asheville City Attorney Brad Branham.

“I see it (the order for oral arguments) as procedural,” he replied with a laugh, when questioned about the significance of the high court’s command during an Aug. 11 telephone interview with the Daily Planet.

 â€œThere’s always the option for the court to ask for oral arguments versus just deciding (the case) off a written brief,” Branham stated. “I do see it as a good thing, in that it will move the case forward.”

So how does the city attorney, representing the defendant (the City of Asheville), respond to the contention by the plaintiff’s attorney, H. Edward Phillips III, who claims that the order for oral arguments is “good news” for the side he represents that is seeking the preservation and the reconstruction of the monument? the Daily Planet asked. 

“I would see it as too much conjecture to speculate that asking for oral arguments has some additional meaning,” Branham replied.

So what does the city attorney think about Phillips’ contention that Asheville is proceeding prematurely with its ‘visioning’ of Pack Square Plaza, even before the litigation is finished on the monument issue? the Daily Planet queried.

After a pause, the city attorney asserted, “I would respectfully dispute that. The city has been in the process for some time in revisioning the Pack Square area. The Vance Monument is just one small footprint in that area.

“The visioning only has limited consequence to the Vance Monument. It’s always been that the result of the court decision is not going to drastically change the revisioning process. The Vance Monument is just one small component. It's existence or non-existence is just an interchangeable factor.”

In speaking of future plans for Pack Square Plaza, Branham said, “It is a substantial area that is being considered with multiple aspects.”

So does the city attorney believe that the state Monument Protection Act is applicable to the case involving the Vance Monument? the Daily Planet asked.

“The case has been the same since it has been initiated,” Branham answered. “The arguments have been made before multiple courts. We have yet to see a judge who agrees with them” (the plaintiffs), which is the party seeking to save the monument.

So what does he think about the validity of the plaintiff’s argument that a 2015 agreement between the city and the plaintiffs who, as individuals donated $108,341 of the $138,000 total cost to restore it? the Daily Planet asked.

“We believe any agreement between the parties had nothing to do with the consistent existance of the monument,” Branham replied. “We want to remove the monument. We believe the Monument Protection Act applies, but that is only the first question. If it applies, does the city still have the right to remove the monument? Going before the Monument Protection Act board is not required” in this case,

“I think the city, at this point, is pleased to see this case going forward. The city feels it has a compelling argument. I don’t think that anybody ever has disputed that the city owns the monument — and that the city owns the land beneath the monument,” Branham said as the Daily Planet interview concluded.