On naming streets

Off the Kuff provides a link at the bottom of a long analysis of the current discussion of state ways and means and school finance that seems almost a throwaway. While I grokked the essay on school finance and generally agree with Kuffner's analysis (i.e., this is screwy; it ain't enough; we'll be having the same discussion in four years, if not two), it's the "throwaway" that caught my attention.

Charles Soechting, Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, has an essay about the current tug of war between two Texas legislators on what to name the drive around the Texas Capitol. That's the drive that is now blocked off with permanent and semi-permanent barricades--the road that no one drives on any more because no one can get to it. Soechting notes that the "choice" is between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

For my own reasons, the thought of that little pissant piece of road being named after either Reagan or Bush is a problem. I don't, for example, fly into National Airport anymore since it was renamed after Reagan. I don't, if I can avoid it, fly into Houston Intercontinental Airport since it was renamed for GW's daddy (although I'm mellowing on that one). Aside from the more political reasons that have to do with their legacy, I am still way pissed that the Austin School Board refused to even consider naming a local high school for Barbara Jordan because she was still alive at the time. Instead they named the high school for that illustrious Texas hero, Jim Bowie, he of the big knife, many lovers, and much booze. Sauce for the goose, as they say.

But I digress. The road-that-no-one-can-drive-on is a small route around the capital building. It might even need a name so that it can be labelled on maps. Right now, it's just shown as one of the "Capitol Drives" with a label that says "No visitor access to Capitol Drives." (That should be "No visitor vehicles," since you can walk there, and legislators park there.) Whatever.

So Soechting makes a few points about why that little drive shouldn't be named for either Reagan or Bush (the younger):

If you feel that you must name something after the two of them, there must be some serious limits on where you do it. You certainly would not want to name a drive around the capitol after Reagan, simply because he’s not from Texas. And naming a road after George W. Bush is like naming a staircase after Gerald Ford, Bush’s record of drunk driving should dissuade anyone from naming even a private driveway after the man.

I love it! And there's more about the various other places that should not be named for these two men (no school for GWB because he was such a poor student, no banks for RR because he presided over the failure of so many of them). It's a good read, although I don't know that he offers any compromise names that will actually be attended to. One of them was Barbara Jordan, which, of course, I like, and which, of course, makes sense, since she started her political career in the Texas Senate (and that was the first political campaign I ever volunteered for). But that probably won't fly, so I hope the stalemate just hangs on until Sine Die.

Another road naming controversy has popped up over the naming of the stretch of I-20 between Dallas and Fort Worth. A couple of bills (HB 55 and SB 170) have been filed to name it for Ronald Reagan. Now that's a part of Texas where there is some support for naming things after Republican icons, but I do love it that Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) is fighting back with a counter-proposal (SB 499) to name the same stretch of road for President William Jefferson Clinton.

Nobody is fighting over the re-naming of Hwy 290 in Harris County for Reagan (HB 540). Sigh. And I was just starting to like that as an alternate route to avoid all the congestion and construction on I-10. That definitely sucks canal water.