When I first heard, early last year, about the black ministers’ push to do away with the name The Paseo and rename it Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, I took it almost as a personal offense.
As I wrote in a column last April, The Paseo has had a special place in my heart since I arrived here from Louisville, KY, 50 years ago and spent my first night as a Kansas Citian at the Admiral Motel (now a Rodeway Inn) at Independence Boulevard and The Paseo.
I’d never heard of a name like that; I’d never seen a divided boulevard that wide; and over the decades I never forgot where I’d spent that first night.
During the long period of uncertainty over what was going to happen to The Paseo — would it be renamed or would it remain the same? — my opposition to a name change gradually softened, and by the time the City Council voted in January to approve the change, I was resigned to The Paseo being consigned to history as far as KC was concerned.
But then the Save The Paseo group came along and got enough signatures to force a public vote on the issue — a vote the Council should have authorized on its own — and the issue is back on the table. Tomorrow, at the polls, voters will decide once and for all whether the name The Paseo should be restored or abandoned forever.
And you know something funny? I remain ambivalent about the possible reprieve…I haven’t even decided how I’m going to vote.
JimmyCsays photo
On one hand, I think a majority of African-Americans in Kansas City prefer the MLK designation, and if that’s what they want, who am I to try to impose my nostalgic memory on them?
On the other hand, when I think about how we voters were deprived of a significant voice on the matter (until now) and the black ministers were able to shriek and beg until they finally got what they wanted, I’m tempted to vote “yes,” that is, to vote to return the name to The Paseo.
I’m also tempted to vote “yes” to spite The Star, which, I feel, is strongly pushing to retain the MLK designation mainly because the editorial board wants to be able to tell the black ministers, “We were with you.”
The Star is also making a mountain of a molehill on this. A Sunday editorial said, in part: “Taking King’s name off the street…would be (a) self-inflicted wound for this city, telegraphing to the rest of the nation that Kansas City doesn’t value King’s memory or his message.”
Balderdash.
However the vote goes, I doubt the story will get picked up anywhere else. This is strictly a parochial issue that doesn’t send any kind of message anywhere outside the city boundaries. If if goes down to defeat, it will be because former Mayor Sly James washed his hands of it and allowed it to dissolve into mush.
…Even though I’m not sure how I’m going to vote, I do have a prediction. I think the number of “yes” votes (to revert to The Paseo) will far outnumber the “no” votes.
The main reason I feel that way is many residents are still pissed off about the bait-and-switch-financial deal on the airport and are still itching to vent their frustration on something.
I think there’s also a general feeling, in our urban, Democratic area, of dissatisfaction with government at the national level, and that could trickle down to the local level. In other words: “Thanks for not consulting us on The Paseo, City Council…Up yours!”
And at a practical level, if this were a normal election, the black political group Freedom Inc. would be able to flex its muscle and turn out a large number of voters. At a normal election, Freedom’s leaders would be getting a boatload of money from candidates and from supporters or opponents of major issues. Freedom would use some of that money to produce yard signs and staff polling places.
But this isn’t a normal election. The Paseo is the only interesting issue on the ballot, and Freedom is on its own. All it’s got is word of mouth.
The Save The Paseo group, on the other hand, has scraped enough money together to put out a mailing to frequent voters last week. Along with general voter disgruntlement, that should be more than good enough to return The Paseo to good standing.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Good going, Jim. What surprises me is the lack of Latino protests over the name change, considering that The Paseo honors the great boulevard of the Paseo de la Reforma in Mexico City. It makes much more sense to change an East/West street into MLK Way.
I’m voting to change it back to Paseo. My daughter goes to PASEO High School. It’s been named that since the 1890’s and I am especially voting to change it back because I don’t like how the “special interest groups” ramrodded it through City Council without following the process of a vote. If they are going to do this with the Paseo and the airport, what next? How much is it going to cost me as a taxpayer next time? My YES vote (and hopefully the majority of everyone else’s) needs to send a message to local government that they can’t skirt the rules.
Spot-on take, Jim. I grew up in the southeast neighborhood, lived in a house taken for the Bruce R. Watkins Drive, where the drama of 1960s integration was front and center. My father rode the Prospect bus from 64th Street to Downtown each day, and I rode the 63rd Street and Main Street buses to work each day with working class folks of all races and backgrounds. Either of those (Prospect or 63rd Street) would have been more appropriate to honor a man of peace who strived until his last dying breath to lift up all who worked so hard at the lower end of society. Changing The Paseo’s name just didn’t have the relevance that my neighborhood thoroughfares held for me.
I anticipated comments like these, and, small sampling that they are (so far), I think they reflect the views of a majority. From that unique name to the resentment of “special interest groups” getting their way to personal memories of trips along KC’s great thoroughfares, people just don’t like arbitrary and significant change. It’s going down — I mean up! (Don’t worry, people will figure out the “yes” means “no” language.)
Good summary, Fitz. I will vote to keep The Paseo Blvd name. Every major city in this country has a Martin Luther King Blvd. Come on KC, we can do better! Let’s honor KC history and let’s find a better option for honoring Dr. Martin Luther King!
Fyi, I served on one of the early SCLC Boards in KC when Emanuel Cleaver was in leadership. I remember us having the beautiful Coretta Scott King
gracing our community. Kansas City has meaning to the King family. Let’s honor them by linking our metro together with their name.
Thanks, Bob…If a national story is to come out of this, it might well be that Kansas City becomes the first city where the white community insists on claiming a measure of King’s legacy. The custom of putting his name on largely African-American-dominated thoroughfares in cities around the country may come to an end right here in KCMO.
I hope those who will be quoted in the aftermath are thinking and preparing along the lines you suggest.
It’s got to be either Linwood or 63rd Street, and everybody knows it…Parks Department employees, prepare to move the signs!
I had not thought of the Spanish cultural tie in with the Paseo High School and probably the development of the Plaza at the time. It is a confusing deal for us voters and I wish it would have been handled at the City Council. I will think about it more but thanks for your thoughts on this issue, Jim.
A lot of people who have no voting right in this matter still have strong feelings about preserving Paseo Boulevard. It is reminiscent of other walkways in other great cities of the world — Las Ramblas in Barcelona, Spain, comes to mind. And although only those folks within the voting district will make the decision, Paseo Boulevard is part of the cultural identity of the entire Metro Kansas City region. When I was a very young child living in midtown, The Paseo was a geographical anchor in helping me develop my mental map of where I lived. I feel certain that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was both grateful and proud of the many honors that were justly awarded to him, I can’t help but feel that he would be dismayed of any honor that had such a divisive history. There are many numbered streets that could be chosen to bear his name, but in truth, only a relatively few people would become aware. A better way to honor Dr. King would be to name something much larger, something that would impress a vastly larger number of individuals — the new airport.
I spoke in favor of naming the airport for King at one of the public hearings sponsored by Mayor James’ committee. That idea not got any traction, however, primarily because King had no particular connection to Kansas City. In retrospect, I think that is right…A street is fine; it should just be a major east-west street so I wide variety of people would see the signs frequently.
A somewhat analogous situation took place in my hometown of Louisville back in the late ’70s. On a 6-5 vote the city council decided to rename a major downtown street — Walnut Avenue — Muhammad Ali Boulevard. Thereafter, the progression of downtown streets between Broadway and the Ohio River was forever changed — for the better. Where it used to be Broadway, Chestnut, Walnut, Librerty, Jefferson, Market, Main, it became Broadway, Chestnut, Muhammad Ali, Liberty, Jefferson, Market, Main.
If tomorrow’s vote is to reinstate “The Paseo” and that leads to a months-long effort/argument about renaming 63rd Street, let’s all remember this: city ordinances require that two-thirds of the residents along a street agree to the change before it can be renamed.
In short, let’s show respect for the law and the residents on the street the next time a name change is pursued.
I thought that was the case too — the two-thirds requirement — but the City Council threw that out the window. It would only take a new council ordinance — and seven votes — to change any street name. Surely, some council member will have the good sense to introduce a name-change ordinance for Linwood or 63rd.
The two-thirds requirement exists, but the city council has the legal right to waive that requirement. Nevertheless, a “legal right” doesn’t equate to a “moral right” to do so.
That said, with no enthusiasm I am going to vote “No.” There’s no answer that won’t cause a lot of hard feelings and prolonged debate. It’s time to move on.
You will enjoy Grandma’s “nostalgic memory” from the Save The Paseo group. Listen to Grandma and Vote YES.https://www.facebook.com/kellie.jones.12382/videos/10214667198546240/