alt Hacker NewsI see this response doesn't actually respond to
> Public art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.
Replies
Zigurd • today at 6:39 PM
It doesn't deserve a response. It's self refuting. The likeliest situation is there was no formal arrangement.
The decent thing to do was to come to an arrangement whether there was a previous arrangement or not. You can be perfectly within your rights as they might be litigated in a court and still be an asshole deserving of public disapproval.
From Mission Local, https://missionlocal.org/2026/09/four-murals-in-clarion-alle...
> “CAMP has had both written and verbal agreements/understandings with property owners and landlords regarding murals on Clarion Alley for 34, going on 35 years,” read a statement from Clarion Alley Mural Project.
> At the moment, it’s unclear whether CAMP has a written agreement for 3331 17th St. The organization, however, does have a verbal agreement with all the landlords/property owners where they have murals throughout the alley.
> The property’s owners haven’t changed since 2001. The owner of 3331 17th St. is listed as the Guerrero V. Espinoza Trust in city records.
> The murals painted over include “We’re all in this together,” a memorial for activist and artist Kirsten Brydum, painted in 2016 by John Viola; “Everything Must Go,” a tribute to Adobe Books’ former home at 3166 16th St., painted in 2015 by Daniel Doherty; a tribute to local graffiti artist Chloe a.k.a. Marfa by Floyd; and a mural completed this spring by students from Graffiti Camp for Girls, a local organization training young women in creating public art.