7000-1. Guess Who Won

[Weatherman2020]

One person in Salem Oregon complained about the Iwo Jima mural on the man’s business on private property.

City says remove it or get fined.

Who said Democrats were fascist America haters?

Far Left Mayor Demands Removal of Private, Iwo Jima Flag-Raising Mural. - The National Pulse

The Democratic Mayor of Salem, Oregon – Chuck Bennett – has ordered the removal of a private business owner’s mural depicting the iconic, patriotic flag-raising at Iwo Jima during WWII. The mural is painted on the side of Valley Roofing in Salem, Oregon, which is privately owned by local...

thenationalpulse.com

 

[FA_Q2]

Odd.

That is a beautiful piece of art. I cannot fathom why anyone would get entangled in ordering its removal. Not only a silly thing to do but not even good optics.


It is rather ironic I can remember people attempting to protect graffiti on public land (101 freeway) when I lived in LA in the 90's. I think some of it is still there if it has not has someone else try and tag over it.

 

[Godboy]

Odd.

That is a beautiful piece of art. I cannot fathom why anyone would get entangled in ordering its removal. Not only a silly thing to do but not even good optics.


It is rather ironic I can remember people attempting to protect graffiti on public land (101 freeway) when I lived in LA in the 90's. I think some of it is still there if it has not has someone else try and tag over it.

Its the US flag and the military. Two things that democrats hate.

 

[JoeB131]

They left out the part where murals have to be permitted before they can be painted on buildings. Or that no one insisted it be taken down.

Unpermitted mural honoring veterans at Salem business gets in crosshairs of code compliance

A patriotic mural painted on a Salem business ignited questions and controversy this week.

www.statesmanjournal.com

City officials contested this claim.

“This mural is a beautiful way to honor and recognize this significant moment in our history, and the sacrifices made by our veterans and their families," officials said in a statement.

"The reason for the code compliance contact is due to the fact that the mural was produced without an application to the Salem Public Arts Commission," Salem Public Works spokesman Trevor Smith said. "Since it hasn’t been established as public art through that process, it is considered a large wall sign per the city’s code. Our sign code is concerned with the size, location, and construction of signage, not what the sign says or how it is portrayed."

 

[fncceo]

"The reason for the code compliance contact is due to the fact that the mural was produced without an application to the Salem Public Arts Commission,"

State-approved art?

 

[fncceo]

If Banksy had drawn a giant penis on that wall without the permission of the owner ... the city would be declaring it a historic landmark and selling admission to view it.

 

[Penelope]

Needs a permit.

 

[martybegan]

They left out the part where murals have to be permitted before they can be painted on buildings. Or that no one insisted it be taken down.

Unpermitted mural honoring veterans at Salem business gets in crosshairs of code compliance

A patriotic mural painted on a Salem business ignited questions and controversy this week.

www.statesmanjournal.com

City officials contested this claim.

“This mural is a beautiful way to honor and recognize this significant moment in our history, and the sacrifices made by our veterans and their families," officials said in a statement.

"The reason for the code compliance contact is due to the fact that the mural was produced without an application to the Salem Public Arts Commission," Salem Public Works spokesman Trevor Smith said. "Since it hasn’t been established as public art through that process, it is considered a large wall sign per the city’s code. Our sign code is concerned with the size, location, and construction of signage, not what the sign says or how it is portrayed."

Why does a PUBLIC arts commission have any jurisdiction over art on PRIVATE property?

 

[martybegan]

Needs a permit.

Why? Again, why does a Public Arts Commission have any say on something put on Private Property?

 

[sparky]

That is a beautiful piece of art.

that it is

Needs a permit.

do flags need permits too?

~S~

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why? Again, why does a Public Arts Commission have any say on something put on Private Property?

The same reason city ordnances can tell a company how big a sign can be on Private Property or what kind of structure can be built on Private Property or what sort of business can be ran from Private Property.

Nobody ever whines about these things.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They left out the part where murals have to be permitted before they can be painted on buildings. Or that no one insisted it be taken down.

Unpermitted mural honoring veterans at Salem business gets in crosshairs of code compliance

A patriotic mural painted on a Salem business ignited questions and controversy this week.

www.statesmanjournal.com

City officials contested this claim.

“This mural is a beautiful way to honor and recognize this significant moment in our history, and the sacrifices made by our veterans and their families," officials said in a statement.

"The reason for the code compliance contact is due to the fact that the mural was produced without an application to the Salem Public Arts Commission," Salem Public Works spokesman Trevor Smith said. "Since it hasn’t been established as public art through that process, it is considered a large wall sign per the city’s code. Our sign code is concerned with the size, location, and construction of signage, not what the sign says or how it is portrayed."

No, they hide behind petty little things like permits. In reality, they hate the flag and the country. Has nothing to do with permits.

 

[martybegan]

The same reason city ordnances can tell a company how big a sign can be on Private Property or what kind of structure can be built on Private Property or what sort of business can be ran from Private Property.

Nobody ever whines about these things.

The sign rules are usually about being near a highway, as a distraction to drivers, at least in NYC that is the rule.

Sorry, but building codes are one thing, asking for pre-approval for patriotic speech is unconstitutional.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The sign rules are usually about being near a highway, as a distraction to drivers, at least in NYC that is the rule.

A lot of cites have sign size ordnances. I have been to a lot where the Golden Arches had to be small.

Sorry, but building codes are one thing, asking for pre-approval for patriotic speech is unconstitutional.

Would you feel the same if a person in the house next to you painted a huge mural on the side of their house honoring Che or Mao or maybe they are wiccans and paint a huge pentagram on the house?

 

[martybegan]

A lot of cites have sign size ordnances. I have been to a lot where the Golden Arches had to be small.



Would you feel the same if a person in the house next to you painted a huge mural on the side of their house honoring Che or Mao or maybe they are wiccans and paint a huge pentagram on the house?

I already drive/walk/commute past plenty of left wing murals and such.

The Mayor got caught being a dick and now he is back pedaling.

Also the golden arches is involved in sales, and can be regulated as commerce.

This is a work of art, and sorry, a Public Art Commission shouldn't have say over private property.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Also the golden arches is involved in sales, and can be regulated as commerce.

This is a work of art, and sorry, a Public Art Commission shouldn't have say over private property.

it is on the side of a business. Is it really any different than a sign?

 

[martybegan]

it is on the side of a business. Is it really any different than a sign?

It isn't involved in advertisement, or identification. It's a work of art.

Again, there is nothing wrong with a PAC reviewing art placed on public property, they have not right to have a say about private property.

The slow increase in regulations like this is nothing new, and is just another example of nanny state bullshit.

Fire codes are one thing, some asshole having the right to deny artwork on private property because of their own views and opinions is something else.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It isn't involved in advertisement, or identification. It's a work of art.

Again, there is nothing wrong with a PAC reviewing art placed on public property, they have not right to have a say about private property.

The slow increase in regulations like this is nothing new, and is just another example of nanny state bullshit.

Fire codes are one thing, some asshole having the right to deny artwork on private property because of their own views and opinions is something else.

I suspect that if the house next to mine painted a giant piece of "artwork" depicting this I would be happy for such rules.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Whiny left loons are annoying

 

[progressive hunter]

The same reason city ordnances can tell a company how big a sign can be on Private Property or what kind of structure can be built on Private Property or what sort of business can be ran from Private Property.

Nobody ever whines about these things.

are you kidding or lying??

everyone complains about the government telling them how or what they can do,,

well maybe everyone but useful idiots like you,,