Residents urge St. Lucie County commissioners to reject proposal to rename road for Charlie Kirk

Dozens of residents told the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners on Oct. 7 they oppose a proposal to rename a county road after conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, saying the move would promote division and send a harmful message to local families and businesses.

Chrissy Thanos, a Fort Pierce resident, opened the topic during the public-comment period, telling commissioners, "I'm here today to urge you not to rename any road in St. Lucie County after Charlie Kirk. Doing so would send a message that our county honors division rather than community..." Thanos said the county should honor people who "bring us together, educators, veterans, first responders, community builders," not national political figures she described as divisive.

Other residents echoed that view. Kim Johnson said commissioners should "vet your efforts" and understand "your community" before moving forward; she called renaming the road fiscally irresponsible for honoring someone who has not contributed locally. Jennifer Wilson said she was "appalled" that the name of a person she called racist would be proposed for a county street and noted other local figures who have not been recognized. David Myers, who drove from neighboring Indian River County to speak, told commissioners, "Charlie Kirk doesn't care about St. Lucie County." Several speakers explicitly cited Kirk's past comments about race and religion and said naming public property for him would alienate residents.

County officials said no formal board action or vote had taken place on the proposal. Interim County Attorney Catherine Barbieri told the board that she was not aware of any formal approval and reminded the public that a formal renaming requires a defined process and likely additional public review. County staff also said an informal discussion of the renaming process had been scheduled for the board's Oct. 14 informal meeting; no legislative renaming or resolution has been adopted.

Why it matters: The request drew a sustained public reaction and raised questions about how the county will evaluate renaming public infrastructure. Residents said the choice would affect nearby homeowners and businesses and could change the character of the neighborhoods. Commissioners noted the legal and administrative steps—plus costs and public notice—required to rename a road and signaled they would treat the matter as a separate agenda discussion rather than an immediate action.

The conversation is ongoing. The board indicated it will put the renaming process on the Oct. 14 informal agenda for further discussion, and county staff said any formal proposal would return to the board with the procedural steps required for a change of name. No ordinance or resolution naming the street was introduced or adopted on Oct. 7.

Ending: For now, the proposal remains at the community-comment stage. Residents who oppose or support a future renaming can expect an informal discussion at the Oct. 14 meeting and any formal request would require public notice and an official vote by the Board of County Commissioners.