Fort Worth council approves renaming of small White Settlement Road segment despite strong local opposition

Fort Worth City Council voted to rename the segment of White Settlement Road between University Drive and North Henderson Street to Westside Drive on Oct. 21, 2025, approving a developer-initiated request tied to the 37-acre Westside Village redevelopment. The vote followed hours of public comment and debate over costs, historical preservation and whether private developers should cover sign and business-transition expenses.

Residents, business owners and neighborhood groups organized against the renaming at multiple public comment sessions, arguing the name is historically significant and that the financial and operational burdens of a rename would fall on long-standing merchants and homeowners. “We must recognize that there are things more important than money,” said James Ray Elliott, a resident who opposed the change. Business owners warned of practical costs and disruptions, from updating vendor records to redoing signage and online listings.

Proponents said the change is a marketing and placemaking measure to support a major private investment. Carl Anderson, speaking for the Westside Village development team, told the council the rename is intended to “reposition this corridor as part of our transformational development.” Representatives for Keystone Group, a major funder of the project, said the development will replace aging commercial uses with mixed-use retail, hospitality and residential space.

The city staff memo cited by councilmembers estimated the direct cost to manufacture and install 47 signs at 15 intersections at roughly $25,658.53 and said an appropriation ordinance and a fiscal-year budget amendment would be required if the city paid for those signs. Pastor Troy Jackson, representing neighborhood opponents, urged the council to require the petitioner to prefund and escrow all municipal costs and to create a mitigation fund to offset business transition costs, saying, “no taxpayer subsidy, explicit or hidden.” Developers pledged to work with affected businesses on concessions but did not present a final cost-sharing plan during the meeting.

Council members debated procedure and public-notice issues before voting. Council member Macy Hill emphasized the request was developer-initiated and not a staff-led renaming, saying the proposal “is a street strategic place-making initiative to formally define and elevate 37 acres and $1,700,000,000 dedicated to the Westside Village development.” Council members Larsdorf and Blaylock recorded public “no” positions on the item during the consent discussion but the item was removed from consent and voted on separately; a motion to approve the rename passed on the floor.

Next steps identified by council and staff include a follow-up coordination process between developers and city departments to define who pays for signage and to work directly with the affected business owners on transition assistance; the council-recorded action also requires the city to adopt any appropriation ordinance needed to fund city costs if the city ends up bearing them. The developer representatives said they would meet with business owners and continue discussions with city staff about traffic, signage and wayfinding.

The decision followed a prolonged public debate over whether renaming public infrastructure is an appropriate development tool and who should absorb the costs. Opponents urged the council to pursue historical markers or educational signage as alternatives that would preserve the road’s history without triggering the operational and financial burdens they described. Supporters argued a new name will help market and unify a major redevelopment that they say will generate new economic activity for the corridor.