Forest Hills has won a court battle in its bid to change six Civil War-inspired street names.
FOREST HILLS, Tenn. (WKRN) — A small city in Davidson County has prevailed in its bid to rename six Confederate-related streets, courtesy of the Davidson County Chancery Court.
For the last two years, Forest Hills has sought legal backing to rename six streets with Confederate names, after the Tennessee Historical Commission ruled the streets constituted “memorials” under the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act.
Under the Act, public entities like cities cannot “rename, relocate, alter, rededicate, or otherwise disturb, or alter” any “memorials” as they are defined in the statute.
According to the order, the city filed a petition with the Commission asking it to declare the streets not “memorials” under the Act in July 2022. The city filed the petition in order to determine if it needed a waiver from the Commission to rename “memorial” streets.
The streets in question are:
Confederate Drive
Robert E. Lee Drive
Robert E. Lee Court
Jefferson Davis Drive
Jefferson Davis Court
General Forrest Court
The city argued the streets did not constitute a memorial under the Act because they were developed not by the city itself but by private developers on private land after the city was initially chartered.
If the Commission agreed with the city’s reasoning, the city would not need to apply for a waiver and could rename the streets without issue.
The Commission then conducted a hearing and determined the streets were considered “memorials” under the Act and denied the city’s petition, according to court documents. The city then filed for a judicial review petition with the Davidson County Chancery Court, asking the Court to reverse the Commission’s decision.
While the Tennessee Historical Commission ruled the streets constituted “memorials” under the plain language of the Act, Judge Patricia Head Moskal disagreed, stating the “plain and unambiguous language,” as well as the “undisputed facts” that the streets were named while they were private property, meant they were not included under the statutory definition of “memorials” in the Act.
“Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Commission’s final decision should be reversed,” Moskal wrote in her opinion.