I mean, Columbus was an actual scumbag, even for his time. I mean the same Spanish who established the Spanish Inquisition thought: Whoa, hold up, this guy's a problem. Other than a generic dislike of vandalism, I can't say I feel all that bad about this.
As mentioned, the historiography on Columbus is a bit more complicated than the common revisionist picture of him as a uniquely debased and greedy dude by the standards of his time. He may have been, it's somewhat of an ongoing question for him in particular because of the uniquely...backstabby...nature of Spanish politics and exploration.
But whether it's Columbus himself enshrined in the statues is kind of the larger question--the dude was the beneficiary of some unearned 'good press' in the past both as a symbol of broad human exploratory impulse* and as an icon for Italians in America, with the latter being noteworthy because of it being a prior case of a minority group that had to fight for recognition and respect in the American cultural scene.
Why Amerigo Vespucci or Giovanni Cabot and his kid especially for North America didn't get similar treatment has always somewhat baffled me. But the 'answer' is for those folks to be getting statues of their own erected alongside Columbus (and we can add some notations about their activities in life--Columbus in particular as the one with the notable governing position and controversy--to them), not previously-erected statues being replaced because they no longer conform to the present sense of historiographical 'justice'.
*Hell, him being so blighted wrong/optimistic in his calculation of the worlds size and sticking to it despite (correct) arguments against it somewhat supports this, even.