The Garfield Statue Is in Ohio. Now Let's Talk About the Future of Our Neighborhood!

The James A. Garfield statue has been relocated to Hiram, Ohio. The statue is no longer in Wilmington, and the work of revitalizing Garfield Triangle is moving forward.

There has been significant discussion surrounding the statue’s relocation, including questions about community engagement, historical preservation, public spending, and the authority to make the decision.

I welcome legitimate questions and public accountability. But I also believe this conversation has become so focused on the statue that it has overshadowed the residents who live in the surrounding neighborhood and the years of work that went into reimagining the space.

This was never simply about removing a statue. It was about addressing neighborhood concerns, investing in a neglected public space, and ensuring that residents have a voice in shaping their own community.

The History of the Garfield Statue

President James A. Garfield was assassinated in 1881, leading communities throughout the United States to erect monuments honoring his life and presidency.

Wilmington’s Garfield statue was originally unveiled in 1895 near Delaware Avenue, Washington Street, and 11th Street. It was later moved to Garfield Triangle, near Concord Avenue and 23rd Street.

For more than a century, the statue occupied a public space in Wilmington.

Although the monument became part of the city’s landscape, President Garfield did not have a significant documented personal connection to Wilmington or Delaware.

Hiram, Ohio, has a much more direct historical relationship with Garfield. He attended the institution that became Hiram College, taught there, and later served as its principal.

The statue was not destroyed, discarded, or abandoned. It was relocated and preserved in a community with a meaningful connection to President Garfield.

Garfield Triangle Needed Attention

For years, Garfield Triangle was an underutilized public space that many surrounding residents considered an eyesore.

Neighbors raised concerns about loitering, suspected drug sales, the condition of the area, and activities affecting their quality of life.

Residents deserve safe, clean, well-maintained, and welcoming public spaces.

Garfield Triangle was not functioning as a major tourist attraction or active neighborhood destination. That does not mean the statue had no historical value or that no one appreciated it. It means there was a legitimate question about whether its location continued to serve the surrounding neighborhood.

Removing a statue alone will not eliminate crime or other public-safety concerns. Those issues require sustained investment and coordinated solutions.

But revitalizing neglected public spaces is one part of improving neighborhood conditions.

The people who live around Garfield Triangle every day deserve to have their concerns taken seriously.

Two Years of Community Engagement and Planning

For approximately two years, I have been working with residents, local artists, and community stakeholders to reimagine Garfield Triangle.

Our discussions have included community murals, public art, pop art, landscaping, beautification, potential renaming, and creating a space that better reflects the surrounding neighborhood.

We surveyed residents about the statue, and the majority of those surveyed supported its removal and did not express a strong connection to the monument.

This work did not begin when the statue was removed.

We have been discussing ways to improve this public space for approximately two years, and those conversations continue.

Community engagement is not limited to formal hearings inside City Hall. It also happens through neighborhood conversations, direct outreach, meetings with residents, and ongoing collaboration.

The final vision for Garfield Triangle has not been completed, and we are continuing to work with residents and artists on the next steps.

We Conducted Research and Reached Out to Historical and Museum Institutions Inside and Outside Delaware

I want to directly address the claim that we made no attempt to find another home for the Garfield statue.

That claim is false.

My office spent time researching possible locations and organizations that might be interested in accepting and preserving the monument.

We explored alternative locations within Wilmington.

We contacted Delaware historical and museum institutions to determine whether they had the capacity and interest to accept the statue. Those conversations did not result in a placement, including because of the monument’s limited historical connection to Delaware.

Our search did not stop at Delaware’s borders.

I also reached out to historical and museum institutions outside Delaware as part of our effort to identify an appropriate new home for the statue.

My Council staff at the time conducted research into organizations and institutions with potential historical connections to President James A. Garfield.

Through that research, my Council staff identified the entity that ultimately became the recipient of the statue in Hiram, Ohio.

That is an important fact that has been missing from much of the public conversation.

The eventual recipient was not simply handed a statue without any effort to explore other options. My office participated in identifying possible receiving institutions, including beyond Delaware, with the goal of finding a location where the monument would be appreciated and preserved.

Hiram, Ohio, has a direct historical relationship with President Garfield. He attended school there, taught there, and served as principal of the institution that later became Hiram College.

The statue was ultimately relocated to that community through a transfer approved by the City of Wilmington’s administration.

We did not destroy history. We researched options, explored alternatives, contacted historical institutions, and helped identify a new home for the monument.

The fact that the statue is now in Ohio is the result of efforts to find a location with a meaningful connection to President Garfield while allowing Wilmington residents to reimagine Garfield Triangle.

The City of Wilmington Authorized the Transfer

The statue was owned by the City of Wilmington.

The city’s administration formally approved transferring the monument to Hiram, Ohio.

I did not personally own, privately sell, or independently transfer city property.

Some have argued that the decision should have come before the full City Council.

However, there is a distinction between believing a Council vote would have been appropriate and identifying a legal provision requiring one.

I have not identified a provision of Wilmington’s City Code categorically requiring a separate Council vote for every transfer of a city-owned statue.

The City Charter provides procedures for the disposition and transfer of certain municipal property. The administration and responsible departments are accountable for documenting the legal authority and procedures used.

I support making those records available for public review.

Political disagreement with a municipal decision is not, by itself, proof of unlawful conduct.

My Approximately $7,000 Contribution

I allocated approximately $7,000 in Council funding toward relocation-related expenses as part of the broader neighborhood improvement effort.

The expenditures included payments to vendors and a City of Wilmington department.

This was not a grant to an individual or nonprofit organization.

The funds supported expenses associated with a project approved by the city’s administration.

Councilmembers have allocations that can support eligible public purposes, including community activities and neighborhood improvements, subject to city budget and procurement requirements.

Councilmembers have also supported physical improvements and recreational infrastructure in their respective districts.

I believe the same accountability standards should apply to every councilmember.

I support transparency regarding the payment records, authorization, and applicable procedures.

This Was Not a Secret

The relocation was not a secret undertaking.

The city’s administration was involved. City departments were involved. Vendors and the receiving municipality were involved.

My office also spent time researching potential locations and contacting historical institutions, including organizations outside Delaware.

Meanwhile, conversations about reimagining Garfield Triangle had been taking place with residents and artists for approximately two years.

Some people may have been unaware of the relocation or believe additional formal public notice should have occurred.

That is a legitimate subject for discussion.

However, being unaware of a decision does not necessarily mean that the decision was intentionally concealed.

I welcome reasonable questions about the process and support making relevant records available.

Whose History Gets Protected, and Whose Community Gets Heard?

I also want to acknowledge the racial dynamics surrounding this controversy.

Councilman Nathan Field and Rick Jansen have been among those raising objections to the statue’s relocation.

People may have different reasons for opposing a monument’s removal, including concerns about preservation, government procedures, public spending, and historical precedent.

But I believe this conversation also raises an important question:

Whose history receives protection, and whose community concerns receive attention?

The relocation of a monument honoring a white president is not inherently an attack on white men or their history.

And advocating for a public space that better reflects its surrounding community is not an effort to erase anyone else’s identity.

For generations, decisions about who deserves monuments, which stories are commemorated, and whose accomplishments receive public recognition have reflected unequal access to power and resources.

Those histories deserve examination.

I find it troubling when a debate about preserving a monument attracts more attention than longstanding neighborhood concerns about safety, neglect, and investment.

Where was this same level of public concern when neighbors were raising issues about loitering, suspected drug activity, and the condition of Garfield Triangle?

Why should a monument’s continued presence in one particular location automatically outweigh the priorities of residents who live nearby?

These are questions worth asking.

History is important. But neighborhoods are not museums frozen in time.

Communities evolve, and public spaces can change.

President Garfield’s history has not been erased. His statue has been relocated to Ohio, where he has a direct historical connection.

Meanwhile, Wilmington residents have the opportunity to shape the future of a neighborhood public space.

We can preserve history while also making room for communities to tell their own stories.

What Happens Next for Garfield Triangle?

The relocation is complete, but our broader neighborhood revitalization effort continues.

We are still communicating with artists and residents about potential murals, public art, landscaping, beautification, cultural features, and renaming the space.

We are working toward a plan that reflects neighborhood priorities.

The final design, budget, and implementation schedule remain under development.

Any required city approvals will need to be obtained, and long-term maintenance and public safety will remain part of the conversation.

The goal is not simply to replace one object with another.

It is to create an attractive, meaningful public space that residents can enjoy and take pride in.

To Those Questioning My Role on City Council

As an elected official, I understand that not everyone will agree with every decision.

People are entitled to question government actions, seek records, and express their opinions.

I welcome accountability.

But disagreement with a public project does not automatically establish misconduct or create grounds for removing an elected official.

For approximately two years, I have worked with residents and artists to explore the future of Garfield Triangle.

My office researched potential homes for the monument, including historical and museum institutions inside and outside Delaware.

My Council staff identified the entity that ultimately accepted the statue.

The City’s administration approved the transfer.

I allocated approximately $7,000 toward relocation-related expenses, and the work of improving Garfield Triangle continues.

I stand behind the public purpose of this effort and my responsibility to the neighborhood.

I’m not going anywhere.

I will continue advocating for the residents of Wilmington’s 2nd District.

This Has Always Been About More Than a Statue

This conversation is about more than President Garfield.

It is about the future of our neighborhoods, the preservation of history, the allocation of public resources, and who has a meaningful voice in decisions about public space.

Our communities deserve investment.

Our artists deserve opportunities.

Our residents deserve to see their priorities reflected in the places where they live.

The statue has been preserved in Ohio, where President Garfield has a direct historical connection.

Now we have an opportunity to transform Garfield Triangle into a space that better serves Wilmington residents.

The statue is in Ohio. The community is in Wilmington. And my responsibility remains to the people I represent.

The work continues.

Councilmember Shané N. Darby
2nd District
Wilmington City Council