ELIZABETH CITY — About 12 minutes of debate, weeks of online tension, and questions over public art and political expression culminated Monday night (Nov. 10) when Elizabeth City Council voted unanimously to deny a proposal to paint a Charlie Kirk street mural.

The 8–0 decision closed the door on the mural but opened a deeper conversation about how Elizabeth City handles public requests, how council sets its agendas, and whether political messages belong on city-owned streets at all.

After the council meeting on Nov. 10, a story about the matter appeared Nov. 12 in the Daily Advance. However, since fewer and fewer people are reading newspapers because of their mistrust of the left leaning mainstream media, among many other reasons, perhaps not many folks saw that story including Steven Young, who is spearheading the effort to paint a street mural on East Colonial Avenue. 

Young found out what happened via social media after reading a “breaking news” post Sunday from Soul Catcher News, a media outlet widely regarded as Mayor Kirk Rivers’ unofficial mouthpiece — not a compliment to any news outlet.  

The outlet stated, “We were able to confirm this with the Mayor of Elizabeth City, Kirk Rivers. He had no other statement at this time.”

Anyone who pursues due diligence knows that the issue was discussed at the last council meeting. More on that in a minute.

Young says he learned of the decision from social media

Like the vast majority of citizens in Pasquotank County and Northeast NC, I don’t read the Daily Advance.

So when I saw the news about the Kirk mural debate posted to social media on Sunday — still buoyant a day after the ECU football team defeated Memphis 31-27 Saturday in Greenville — I decided to look into the matter.

No, Soul Catcher, it’s not breaking news nor should it be a shock to anyone that council opposes a street mural dedicated to a conservative Christian and Republican who is supportive of President Trump, though it did approve a street mural to Black Lives Matter in 2021, however, Soul Catcher deserves a gold star for calling attention to the matter.

When I reached out to Young, a Turning Point USA supporter, he told the Albemarle Observer he found out about the vote only after seeing Soul Catcher’s post. He referred me to his post in response to the news — “Sooooo this happened. It would have been better if they just continued to ignore us. Now I know my next move.”

Young did not elaborate what his next move would be.

When asked for a statement on the matter, Young referred me to his speech at the Oct. 27 council meeting where he describe the street mural as “a vibrant mural celebrating Charlie Kirk’s life and message.”

As everyone knows, Kirk was gun downed by an assassin’s bullet Sept. 10 at a speaking engagement in Utah.

Young said Kirk was “recently martyred on September 10th, 2025 at age 31 for his bold advocacy of free speech, conservative values, and Biblical truth.” That date, he argued, was central to his case that the mural was not simply decorative, but a tribute to a man he believed had championed Christian and conservative voices.

Moreover, there’s a Black Lives Matter street mural on the same street, so a precedent has been set.

To read more about Young’s speech to council, click this link.

Monday night: A short agenda item becomes a long debate

Fast forward to the council meeting — the matter was discussed for about 12 minutes within the meeting that lasted about an hour and 43 minutes. Discussion about the mural quickly expanded — touching on agenda procedures, what constitutes a “request,” how much weight public comment carries, and whether the city should permit political murals at all.

Point of information — the item dealing with a street mural was added to council’s agenda on the day of the meeting – Monday, Nov. 10 – so unless you knew, you didn’t know the issue of a street mural honoring Kirk was to be discussed. As a result, there were many empty seats in the gallery, certainly not the packed house that spoke to council, overwhelmingly in opposition, about the matter at the Oct. 27 meeting when the matter was tabled until the next council meeting Nov. 10. Depending on who you talk to, no formal proposal had been presented to council.

The discussion began when Mayor Pro Tem Kem Spence introduced a motion to deny the mural.

“I’m not negating anyone’s feelings in reference to the Charlie Kirk mural,” Spence said. “However, a couple weeks ago we had a meeting and this chamber was full. We had one come up (Steven Young) and when he spoke, he stated why he wanted it and why it should be done. But we also had quite a few other ones that came up and stated why they didn’t want it done or why it should not be done.”

Spence argued that council’s responsibility was to reflect the majority of public input.

“Now we are represented by our citizens and majority of the citizens came here besides one came up and said no,” he said. He noted that Young had recently expressed frustration online about council’s lack of response but said the public had already been clear. “I’m not saying he’s wrong for how he feels, but I am saying that I make a motion that we decline the Charlie Kirk mural in the city of Elizabeth City.”

Councilman Johnnie Walton said his perspective was not political; he felt empathy, but not political alignment.

“I’m saying if it had happened to me, how would I feel? I pray for the family, but I just don’t have the same emotions that another person might have for them.”

He added he could not support the mural.

“To bring a mural here, I couldn’t vote for it. But like I said, I pray for the family and I wish it hadn’t happened, but you know, I couldn’t vote for that.”

Did anyone actually submit a request?

Councilwoman Rosemarie Whitehurst challenged whether the mural had ever been formally submitted.

“My question is, did anyone come before the council making this request? Because I don’t recall that,” she asked.

Spence answered, “Last week, week before last.”

Whitehurst asked, “During a public comment?”

Rivers responded, “Yes.”

Whitehurst pressed further: did public comment equal a formal request? Spence deferred.

“I’m gonna let the mayor handle that.”

Rivers clarified: it did not.

“No, no official request has been made,” he said. “Everyone by law has the right to come to the podium… It’s up to at the point and when it comes to the setting of the agenda, that would be, that’s the only mayor’s responsibility.”

He added that council could amend an agenda if it chose.

Email confusion and lingering expectations

Councilman Javis Gibbs said he remembered receiving an email from Young.

“I’m trying to remember, but y’all may be able to help me with this. I think we got an email,” he said.

Walton confirmed: “He asked us about it.”

Gibbs continued, “I think I got an email that he requested an answer, you know, to be put on the agenda.” He said council needed to respond because “by not taking an official action and it constantly just lingers out there.”

Rivers confirmed: the clerk had sent out the email.

“That email was sent to the Madam clerk… Whether the council decides to move forward with it or deny, there are steps that have to be taking place… just like if you want to close the street.”

Councilman Johnson Biggs raised legal concerns.

“Can we actually take action on something that’s not formally been brought to council?” he asked. “There’s been no proposal … can legally, I guess, can we turn something down that’s not being brought?”

A city official responded: yes.

“It’s been properly added to tonight’s agenda… Even though there’s not a formal proposal… there’s been a very well publicized request that this be done.”

Biggs proposes banning all future street murals

Before the vote, Biggs offered a broader alternative.

He asked Spence: “Would you entertain a friendly amendment that instead of no to the Charlie Kirk mural that we say no to anything painted on streets that are owned by Elizabeth City for this point going forward.”

Spence declined.

“We’re talking about the opinion of the people. We, the people came here last week… and spoke unanimously.”

Biggs reiterated his broader concern.

“Regardless of anybody’s political views… I don’t know that painting anything on city-owned streets is a core mission of local government… No matter what side of the issue it is, I’ve got a problem with us getting involved in social or political issues such as this.”

A debate far from settled

The vote ends this particular mural request, but not the community debate behind it.

Supporters say denial contradicts the precedent of the 2021 Black Lives Matter mural. Opponents argue political murals create division and legal inconsistency. Several council members signaled interest in clarifying mural policy in the future — or possibly eliminating such murals entirely.

For now, the only certainty is that the question of whose messages and values should appear on Elizabeth City’s streets remains deeply unresolved.