Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LGBTQ+ San Antonio residents criticize city's plan to replace rainbow crosswalks with rainbow sidewalks
State Government
LGBTQ+ San Antonio residents criticize city’s plan to replace rainbow crosswalks with rainbow sidewalks
After a lawsuit failed to stop the crosswalk’s removal, caused by a threat to funding, some residents called its replacement a consolation that ignores a larger fight in the state.
By Ayden Runnels
Jan. 16, 2026, 5:00 a.m. Central Jan. 16, 2026, 5:39 p.m. Central
On Tuesday, a road crew started the morning covering up one of San Antonio’s most colorful landmarks, leaving seemingly no trace of the city’s rainbow crosswalks by noon. The only remnants of the crosswalk were cylinders extracted from each color of the rainbow, to be saved by the city for historical purposes.
For state and federal transportation officials, scrubbing the intersection at North Main Avenue and Evergreen Street meant removing “political” imagery from San Antonio’s tax-funded streets — an initiative they threatened millions in transportation funding over in cities across Texas.
For local advocates and members of the LGBTQ+ community, paving over the centerpiece of San Antonio’s newly anointed Pride Cultural Heritage District was a physical manifestation of what they feel is an increasingly hostile climate in the state toward gay and transgender people. That animosity has also influenced San Antonio’s proposed alternative to paint rainbows on the sidewalks near the intersection where the crosswalk was.
While the project could potentially make the district even more colorful than before, it has been criticized by some as too quick a solution that overlooks the larger shift in Texas’ treatment of its LGBTQ+ community.
{snip}
Correction, Jan. 16, 2026, 5:38 p.m. Central : A previous version of this story incorrectly quoted James Poindexter as saying that not requiring a City Council vote on the sidewalk installation went against due process. Poindexter said a council vote on the sidewalk installation could strengthen its protections against attempts to remove it.
LGBTQ+ San Antonio residents criticize city’s plan to replace rainbow crosswalks with rainbow sidewalks
After a lawsuit failed to stop the crosswalk’s removal, caused by a threat to funding, some residents called its replacement a consolation that ignores a larger fight in the state.
By Ayden Runnels
Jan. 16, 2026, 5:00 a.m. Central Jan. 16, 2026, 5:39 p.m. Central
On Tuesday, a road crew started the morning covering up one of San Antonio’s most colorful landmarks, leaving seemingly no trace of the city’s rainbow crosswalks by noon. The only remnants of the crosswalk were cylinders extracted from each color of the rainbow, to be saved by the city for historical purposes.
For state and federal transportation officials, scrubbing the intersection at North Main Avenue and Evergreen Street meant removing “political” imagery from San Antonio’s tax-funded streets — an initiative they threatened millions in transportation funding over in cities across Texas.
For local advocates and members of the LGBTQ+ community, paving over the centerpiece of San Antonio’s newly anointed Pride Cultural Heritage District was a physical manifestation of what they feel is an increasingly hostile climate in the state toward gay and transgender people. That animosity has also influenced San Antonio’s proposed alternative to paint rainbows on the sidewalks near the intersection where the crosswalk was.
While the project could potentially make the district even more colorful than before, it has been criticized by some as too quick a solution that overlooks the larger shift in Texas’ treatment of its LGBTQ+ community.
{snip}
Correction, Jan. 16, 2026, 5:38 p.m. Central : A previous version of this story incorrectly quoted James Poindexter as saying that not requiring a City Council vote on the sidewalk installation went against due process. Poindexter said a council vote on the sidewalk installation could strengthen its protections against attempts to remove it.