The Permanent October 7 Memorial

On October 5 the City will be holding an indoor “ground-breaking” at the Beverly Hills Public Library for a permanent October 7 Memorial intended to honor the victims of the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas in Israel.

The site for the memorial is on the south side of the Library on the east side of Rexford directly across from the 9/11 Memorial Garden.

The design was chosen from numerous respondents to the City’s request for a proposal (RFP). It is entitled: “40 Steps to the Sky: A memorial of light and memory by Archillusion Design Studio.” It will consist of a circular staircase, approximately 23’ high with elaborate lighting and a water feature. In case you were wondering, I am satisfied that this installation would not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution regarding the separation of church and state.

The Council initiated and, not entirely without misgivings, has unanimously supported it and announced that it had received 3100 emails in support of the concept. To those who contend that we should not be involving ourselves in a foreign matter, they point out that of all the countries in the world, only Israel has erected a memorial to the victims of 9/11. (I will leave to others the debate about equivalence.)

The Council announced initially that the “all in” cost would be $500,000 and has said that the City has “set aside” that amount. It was suggested that contributions from the public would be solicited and implied that such contributions would offset and reduce the City’s contribution.

The RFP sent to potential designers specified that the budget for the project was $500,000. The designer selected, Archillusion, has estimated that the cost will be $1,500,000 but, according to City Manager Nancy Hunt-Coffey, that’s a “guess.” A recent staff report stated that some donations and commitments have been received. I asked for more specific information regarding the amounts that have been received and have been told only that “fund-raising efforts are ongoing.”

Clearly, this “train” has long left the station so the time to affect the decision to go forward with this has likely passed. Nonetheless, there are some questions that are worth considering so I have discussed it with a number of City residents. Here are some of the responses:

Gay Abrams: “There are many serious questions, concerns and red flags surrounding the council’s decision in moving forward with the memorial including the process, security and general due diligence. One aspect that most people may not be aware of is that the permanent memorial for the attack on Oct 7th in Israel, significantly funded by the City will be placed in front of Beverly Hills City Hall juxtaposed across from the 9/11 Memorial. The 9/11 Memorial exists through the efforts of our Fire Department and Rotary and was privately funded. This raises a lot of complex questions and emotions and has the potential to lead to existing tensions within our community, our country and abroad.”

Alan Block (land use attorney, member Cultural Heritage Commission, former Chair of Planning Commision): “As much as I support Israel, and it is extremely important to me, probably more so than any other political issue, I don’t know if public funds should be expended for this purpose. First, I believe in the separation of “church and state”, and although Israel is not a religion, it’s clearly analogous to Judaism, and secondly, as hard as it is for me to say this, I’m concerned with the antisemitic fallout, vandalism, maintenance and security, and possible violence and injury that might result in our community from the installation of such a Memorial. Although I personally believe an October 7th Memorial would be fantastic, I’m concerned of the consequences it could bring to our city.”

Eliot Finkel (former City Treasurer): “I have difficulty reconciling the expenditure of $500k of City Funds at a time when the Council expresses continuing concern over our City’s projected budget deficits. Spending money on projects not directly involved with City operations seems fiscally irresponsible at this time.”

Lori Greene Gordon (Chair, Cultural Heritage Commission; former Planning Commissioner): “As probably the only majority Jewish city in the USA, I think it’s important and appropriate to have this memorial. I would prefer 100% private funding. But I think that it’s a good tool for the incumbent’s election campaigns to say they funded this memorial. Location is fine with me.”

Terri Kaplan (Planning Commissioner): “Let it be privately funded.”

Joel Krischer (accomplished lawyer and strong supporter of AIPAC): “Jerusalem has a 9/11 memorial (9/11 Living Memorial Plaza). It is the only such memorial outside the United States to list the names of all of the victims. October 7 was Israel’s equivalent to 9/11 although much worse in relative terms and also much worse because of the related atrocities and the taking of hostages. Against that background, I think it would be entirely appropriate for any American city or state (or even the federal government) to have a memorial for the victims of October 7; Israel is one of our closest allies and also one that, more regularly than the US, suffers from terrorist attacks. That said, I am troubled about using public funds for it. The memorial in Israel was commissioned by private funds and any October 7 memorial here should be financed the same way. I have no problem with the concept of the city providing the land for such a memorial.”

Tom Levyn (former three time Mayor): “Beverly Hills has always shown leadership in using public monies to remind the world of the horrible effects of terrorism. Moreover, an October 7 Memorial is appropriate and important to so many residents of Beverly Hills and their loved ones.”

Joe Shooshani (former Planning Commissioner): “The October 7th attack has been one of the most devastating incidents to affect the Jewish community since the Holocaust. However, I have reservations about Beverly Hills being the location for a memorial at this time. Given the ongoing nature of the conflict and the uncertainty surrounding its outcome, I believe it would be prudent to wait a few years before proceeding with such a project. This would allow for a more nuanced understanding of the events and their impact, potentially leading to a more thoughtful and effective commemoration.”

Ronald Richards (Top Trial Lawyer): “I am very much in favor of the memorial and I think it is a great thing for Beverly Hills.”

All of these, and many others, have helped shape my understanding of the issues to be considered.

Does this project enjoy overwhelming community support?

Ostensibly, it does. The Council is plowing ahead very quickly and, as mentioned above, received 3100 emails in support (although I have no information from whom these emails were received). As noted above, individual expressed sentiments are decidedly mixed. I spoke with several residents who supported the memorial and several who did not. However, most of the ones who did not support the memorial were not willing to be publicly quoted because of a concern that they would be branded and harassed as a “self-hating Jew” or anti-semitic. The fact that any City residents would be fearful of expressing their views is very troublesome.

Because of this fear factor we may not have an accurate sense of community sentiment.

Is this the right time for installation of such a memorial?

Without detailing the obvious, circumstances and attitudes in Israel, Gaza and around the world, have changed markedly since the savage and horrendous attacks of October 7, 2023. For example, in The Economist’s cover story this week entitled: “How Israel is Losing America”, it was reported that in 2022, 42% of Americans had an unfavorable view of Israel, now 53% do.”

Most importantly, we do not know what the future will bring.

I don’t see the urgency. The City’s September 11, 2001 Memorial was installed on September 11, 2011, ten years later. Why not wait at least until the war is over?

Does the installation of this memorial present any concerns for the City?

There is a concern that this memorial will be a target for terrorists and others who do not share our connections with the October 7 victims. Notably, the “ground-breaking” will not be outdoors as initially planned on Rexford Drive in front of the Library and BHFD Headquarters but, rather, will be indoors in the Library due to security concerns. Apparently, there have already been credible threats that have necessitated this move. That speaks volumes. Of course, neither the memorial itself nor any other part of the City will be sequestered inside the Library walls.

Is this an appropriate expenditure of public funds?

The costs of the design, fabrication, installation, security and maintenance have already escalated from an “all-in” $500,000, less any private contributions, to a “guess” of $1,500,000 from the artist. Others have told me that they believe that the cost will more likely be between $2,500,000 to $5,000,000.

No one seems to know what the total cost will be. But we do know that the City is facing a budget crunch. Ironically, last week the City projected that the holiday tree lighting event was over budget by $13,000 and had to solicit additional contributions to cover the shortfall. Rushing into an unnecessary commitment to spend between $1,500,000 and $5,000,000 while scrambling to find $13,000 is, to me, odd.

Notably, the City donated the land for our 9/11 Memorial and the total cost, approximately $600,000, was funded entirely with private donations, no City funds.

There are those who firmly believe that the project can and will be entirely funded by private donations. They may be right. If we raised $1000 from each of the 3100 email supporters, we would be off to a good financing start. Why not defer the actual groundbreaking until the fundraising is complete and we see how much can be raised and then limit the cost the that amount? This is not the time for an unanticipated multi-million $ expense. Build now, try to find the $ to pay for it later is not prudent management. Quite the antithesis!

My conclusions are:

The potential impact of this installation on our residents requires that the level of City resident support be assessed in a way that residents can be fully and accurately informed about costs and express their views without fear, perhaps a referendum.

There is no rush to do this. We should wait at least until the war in Gaza is over.

We should not expend or commit City funds (beyond the site itself) but, rather, defer this project until it can be paid for entirely through private donations. The most convincing evidence of public support will come when the supporters donate the cost of construction, installation, security and maintenance.