The antagonistic debate over renaming Sixth Avenue after slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. signals a previously undisclosed racial divide in the city of Zephyrhills.
Nearly 500 people signed a petition protesting the name change, a stunning number considering the former Sixth Avenue has 111 parcels controlled by 90 owners, according to county records.
That so many people who do not live on the street found the name change objectionable is troubling. Equally disturbing is that half of the city's elected officials, the non-voting mayor and two council members, agreed. Council member Cathi Compton even switched her vote, saying the decision had been rushed.
Unfortunately, that is the populist excuse, borrowed from the opponents, which masks the racial overtone at the heart of the dispute. Criticizing the process is the latest in a list of evolving arguments that ranged from disrupting the numerical grid of city street addresses, to reduced property values, to absorbing the expense of changing stationery. Compton is wrong to buy into that line of thinking and would have had more credibility if she had raised those concerns at the two previous meetings in which the name change was discussed.
Besides, the list of affected property includes the lots containing the city's fire station and library, the proximity of which does more to enhance property values than any unsubstantiated argument about King's name devaluing individual home prices.
The other large entity on the street, the Sixth Avenue Mobile Home Park, does not plan to change its name and the 134 lots inside the park do not alter their addresses since only the park office sits on the newly rechristened Martin Luther King Avenue.
Still, King's legacy shouldn't be a controversial street renaming. The city has work to do. It is apparent that human prejudices continue to run deep and Zephyrhills shouldn't relax its commitment to progress.
Though many opponents deny the nasty, unspoken reason for their objections, the debate shows some in Zephyrhills think the mark of an black man's name will demean their homestead. Some suggest a new street or park should bear King's name, but others contend he is not worthy of such distinction.
Were King alive today, he would seek to build acceptance. He would preach understanding and call for cooperation. He wouldn't duck the obstacles and he certainly wouldn't deny what is right in favor of what is expedient.
Therein lies the challenge to Zephyrhills' leadership. As a reminder of the past and responsibility for the future, the naming of a street is a modest measure. Confronting a community divide requires a more serious commitment of time, patience and consensus building.
In honor of King's memory, the city shouldn't let the opportunity pass.
