Rainbow crosswalk removal: Suppression, not safety

Rainbow crosswalks: Are they truly a threat to public safety, or is it just a way for individuals in power to suppress political expression and gain control over the public?

Throughout the country, primarily in the state of Florida, standard asphalt crosswalks were painted colorfully to create rainbows along the streets. This form of expression and artwork was established in order to foster an inclusive and LGBTQ+ friendly environment, sending the message that everyone belongs in the community. However, in recent weeks, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and President Donald Trump encouraged the order issued by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to paint over all rainbow crosswalks in the state of Florida.

The attempted removal of rainbow crosswalks is unjust since it is being terminated on an unfair and unconstitutional basis, only serving narrow, dictatorial beliefs of rulers aiming to hurt the LGBTQ+ community. It is a disgrace that the government is spending such ridiculous amounts of time and money trying to erase LGBTQ+ representation. 

“In the federal letter, sent July 1, Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy gave states 60 days to study crosswalks at intersections and develop a list of ‘compliance concerns’ in their states as part of his ‘Safe Roads’ initiative,” according to The Washington Post. Duffy explained that the “non-standard” colors don’t belong on streets. Duffy and the FDOT argue that roadways should be reserved for standard, uniform traffic control devices to ensure safety. From a legal standpoint, the FDOT, a state entity, has the power from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to regulate traffic control devices statewide. Cities can install crosswalks and signs, but only if they meet the “uniform” standards FDOT enforces. They argue that rainbow crosswalks are a safety hazard and do not comply with the MUTCD standards; however, there is no actual data or evidence proving that rainbow crosswalks cause car accidents.

The FDOT also threatened to cut back or entirely remove transportation funding if cities do not comply with these orders, putting mayors in a difficult position to make decisions. Do they fight for their community’s beliefs and representation, or do they comply with the FDOT’s issued Memorandum 25-01 in removing these crosswalks? Although they are placed in a difficult situation, mayors who represent diverse communities must protect their citizens and fight for free speech/LGBTQ+ rights.

Many mayors in different Florida cities on the local government level have spoken out about their personal views on the memo and its true intentions. The mayor of Orlando, Buddy Dyer, stated that this memo is truly a “cruel political act,” and Fort Lauderdale’s mayor, Dean Trantalis, stated that “[covering up the colorful crosswalks is] simply a camouflage for their true intent — which is to erase or eliminate as many LGBTQ+ references in the state as possible,” according to Florida Politics.

Although it may seem that cities are very limited in their power and choices under the given circumstances, the FDOT has given three offers: remove street art, lose millions in state funding for road projects or appeal to the court. In the court of law, the city could argue a violation of their First Amendment rights on free speech or to cut FDOT funding by highlighting their overreaching power and continuous threats. Miami Beach, Key West, Delray Beach and Fort Lauderdale are resisting FDOT with legal action. None of the cases have concluded. However, administrations of these cities have made it clear that they are actively resisting and fighting this memo. On the other hand, Orlando, Tampa, St. Petersburg and Gainesville agreed to pave their streets.

In both courses of action, mayors are protecting their townspeople at a cost. Yet, it is still a shame and disappointment to hear that the administrators of many cities have folded under the orders of the FDOT and will not continue to fight for the expression of their communities and the identities of LGBTQ+ individuals.

Furthermore, some of these crosswalks and murals serve a greater purpose and represent historically significant events in the communities. On West Esther Street in Orlando, Florida, a rainbow crosswalk was painted across the asphalt “as part of a memorial to the 49 people killed by a gunman at Pulse nightclub in 2016,” according to The Washington Post. This memorial was painted over on Aug. 20 and left many in despair.

Since the majority of the people who were killed were a part of the LGBTQ+ group, this valuable memorial has served for over a decade as a remembrance of the victims. Now it is destroyed over a political dispute regarding LGBTQ+ individuals and their representation in the country.

Prominent political figures reacted to the overnight painting as “a disgusting act of betrayal.” State Senator Carlos Guillermo Smit, who is openly gay, expressed his feelings in an interview with CBS News. Additionally, City Commissioner Patty Sheehan posted her anger on social media, stating bluntly: “They can’t erase us.” 

This order was made under the “belief” that roads and crosswalks serve for the safety of pedestrians and drivers, not for political expression. The FDOT claims that these locations serve for daily use and not as artwork or representation. Yet, over the past decades, we have seen crosswalks, sides of buildings and infrastructure be covered with artwork and murals all serving to express ideas and individualism. If we can’t have rainbow crosswalks, is the government telling our children that they can not paint flowers with chalk alongside roads? The streets of the public are the place for individuals to not only depict their opinions, but also to exert their freedom of speech and petition.

The memo issued by FDOT states that removal of non-compliant pavement art, including rainbow crosswalks, from public roads is necessary and orders the removal of any “surface art” that conveys social, political or ideological messages and does not function as a standard traffic control device.

However, this is a completely invalid reason to censor and cover them up; they do not harm our public but rather enhance the connection of the community. Just because they do not function as “a standard traffic control device” does not mean we need to erase them. Why is the government not spending time fixing roads that are in desperate need of repair or lacking traffic control devices? That is the real problem at hand.

These crosswalks are to provide an inclusive and LGBTQ+ friendly environment, which is simply not against the law. Rather, it is simply “against” the people who are enforcing this memo and their own personal political beliefs. That is the reality. 

Let us face it: these crosswalks have been harmless for decades on end, adding art, life and color to the streets, while also brightening people’s days as they drive by. America’s problems are much wider than a couple of rainbow crosswalks along the roads. Politicians like DeSantis issued this order not to solve traffic problems, but to erase the efforts of communities they do not agree with, most prominently the LGBTQ+.

Although it may be a harsh reality to hear, if these various Floridian cities follow this order, political censorship will only further develop, rippling through the country and negatively affecting the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals. For the past decades, advocates have worked tirelessly to promote inclusivity, but with this new wave of events, it seems we are only moving backward.

This is not a safety matter; this is political censorship.