Posted on 02/14/2018 6:27:26 AM PST by reaganaut1
The good news is that building owners will now police their walls for this vandalism like a cat for mice in the basement and destroy them before they can gain recognition.
Right now, owners association newsletters are pumping out warnings to building owners not to let a graffiti movement get started on their buildings lest they lose them to the vandals.
So force these “artists” to pay taxes and upkeep on these buildings they used for their own selfish reasons. We have to get these lawyers and judges under control. They make millions on ridiculous crap.
What if the owner wants to tear it down? Better yet, what if the government wants to tear it down to build something for the people?
Isn’t Majority Rule great? 51% favor you having no rights over your property — Bingo, Democracy at work.
You just need to make a big freaking deal out of it that you are using NON_AEROSOL PAINT AS TO NOT DAMAGE THE OZONE LAYER AND PROMOTE GLOBULL CATASTROPHIC WARMING/COOLING.
The “artist” can buy carbon credits with his 5Mil then spend the rest of his life in jail for being an idiot and spreading it around until we all were involved in this thing against our wills................!!!
Good point, not only am I not damaging the ozone layer but the application process is totally organic and using indigenous methods ;-)
Well the law says otherwise. And I bet you didn’t read the facts of the case either.
Property rights are more important than free speech rights. Property rights are human rights according to Milton Friedman.
Bingo.
So Ny has a law that allows people to deface others’ property, as long as someone calls it art. This is nothing more than the left’s ongoing drive to eliminate private property, while keeping the name.
You get to pay taxes on it, and insurance. You must do the upkeep. But it isn’t yours. It’s the government’s.
OK, that is not “art.” Would this liberal judge like that sprayed on his mansion?
1. Did the owner pay the "artist" to paint it or at least supply the $$ for the supplies?
2. $6.7 million for graffiti?? how is it worth that much? At least that is challengable.
3. Who decides on "recognized stature"? Shouldn't that be decided upon before it can be erased/painted over?
...or if all the graffiti was pro-Conservative, pro-Trump.
I vacillate between the two. I think we both agree they are pretty darned important and basic.
The idea that some goofy council and mayor can pass a law saying that someone, if they are a “specially recognized artistic force” can apply their art to your property and you don’t have a right to remove it is absolutely preposterous.
Ignoring the obvious rights issues, art is subjective. What one man likes, another loathes. e.g. I’m not into Punk.
Did the buildings owners give permission for the graffiti to be painted? If not then the ‘artists’ were trespassing. And if the owners did give permission then it demonstrates their rights of ownership and they can decide how they paint their property which they are also paying property taxes on too. Flux the ruling and appeal.
The quality or lack thereof is irrelevant here. The act of putting something on a building in which you have no ownership interest nor permission to do so be it a sign or graffiti or a copy of a Rembrandt ranges from vandalism to destruction of property. Such a law prohibiting owner removal of graffiti should constitute a taking without just compensation. Hopefully, the aggrieved property owner will take this to the highest Court in the land which should rule with enough force to kick the council, mayor and the rest of the turds supporting the law back to the ideological shit holes where they were initially crapped out into the atmosphere.
We are in utter agreement.
During my last post, I was imagining coming out of my home one day and finding that Andy Warhol had created one of his monstrosities on my garage door and the law requires that I leave it there because, you know, it was done by Andy Warhol.
That’s just stupid on any piece of property that falls within the jurisdiction of the US constitution, though It may play well in Cuba or NK.
Oxymoron.
“From the start, the 5Pointz case had pitted two of New York City’s most prominent sectors against each other: the art world and the real estate business.”
So grafitti vandals are considered part of the “art world?” Well, I guess if pi$$ in a bottle with a crucifix, or buffalo $hit on a canvas is considered “art,” it makes sense!
“Does this mean that the NYC Subway system owes gang bangers money when they clean the tags and profanity off the cars?”
Well, from what I’ve seen, all the newer NYC subway cars are stainless steel skinned so they can be cleaned with paint stripper. So, so much for NYC’s “support for the arts!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.