alt Hacker Newshttps://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.
If there was an agreement in place, property rights would protect the murals from vandalism by the property owners, not the other way 'round.
I think you should consider why you immediately, and incorrectly, jump to the defense of moneyed interests over artists and community organizations.
Replies
nickff • today at 7:20 PM
That statement does not say that CAMP had agreements with all property owners, and it is possible that they did not have an agreement with this one.
➕ show 1 reply
written and verbal agreements is incredibly vague. This could mean as little as "Sure you can paint a mural on my building", or any number of agreements that don't transfer ownership rights. They don't say that they have a written agreement allowing indefinite usage of the wall for murals. Allowing a mural to be painted is not a transference of ownership and is not an agreement for the owner to never paint over it.
> I think you should consider why you immediately, and incorrectly, jump to the defense of moneyed interests over artists and community organizations.
Because property rights are good and allow for a functioning society.