June 23, 2003

(Updated) Mural Battles Continue Beneath Morrison Bridge

Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.

Today's Oregonian has an update of sorts to a Portland Mercury story I mentioned here last month.

Back then the story was that the City was threatening to whitewash a graffiti-style mural on the outside of New American Casuals. Today, the story is that the City indeed moved in to paint over the mural, but the store and artists are pushing back:

Some graffiti artists and a business owner want to change that scenery by painting murals on a quarter-block building on Southeast Morrison street west of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. But they've collided head-on with city sign and anti-graffiti codes, and the city responded last week by painting over their mural art.
Jason Brown and a group of artists are fighting back. Late Friday afternoon, they were painting again -- this time a political message from Mahatma Gandhi. It reads, "Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless and corrupt."

Brown, the owner of New American Casuals, says he didn't know he needed a permit from the City. Last month, the Bureau of Development Services issued a citation, and this month the City painted over the mural. In the background, as ever, is the City's sign code, which tends to restrict murals as a byproduct of wanting to restrict overly-intrusive commercial signs. Restricting one without restricting the other, it's argued, would be a limit based upon the content of expression and thus legally untenable.

June 23, 2003

Update

For those who feel compelled to subject themselves to the actual code, see Signs and Related Regulations, otherwise known as Title 23 of our City Code.

June 24, 2003

Update

Alexander B. Craghead (whose permalinks aren't working again) weighs in on this, as does Jack Bogdanski (whose permalinks are working). Bogdanski does a better job than I in relating the legal status of murals under the City's sign code (referenced above) and how its underlying desire to restrict overly-obnoxious commercial speech can't help but sweep in other content, especially by virtue of Oregon's own speech protections, which are considered to be much deeper even than those in the U.S. Constitution.

I do, however, disagree with his chastizement of The Oregonian for publishing a picture of the mural artist, and the artist's rather asinine comments. Ultimately, these things were pretty much part of the meat of the story -- and the photograph essentially illustrates the "escalating battle" which this mural controversy has become.

Posted at 02:18 PM | PermalinkComments (11) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Livability, Metro-Area Politics

« Previous Next »

Comments (11)

  1. hilsy on 23 Jun 2003

    I saw the story in this morning's Oregonian regarding this issue. I'm somewhat conflicted because of the graffiti side of this issue. Some storefronts in my neighborhood, Brooklyn, have been battling a tagger the last 4 or 5 days.
    Having looked at the issue of murals via a law school pro bono project I understand the problems the city faces regarding regulating billboards versus murals. Oh well, a bit rambling but my 2 cents to not forget the problem of graffiti.

  2. Dave Lister on 23 Jun 2003

    There's grafitti art and there's taggers. It's really two different things. There used to be some legal outlets for grafitti artists in Portland but they've all been shut down. I think a lot of it is really good and I'd like to see it reasonably allowed on businesses. Some taggers are frustrated grafitti artists with no place to paint. Others are just vandals. I think it would be good if there were some outlets for them to paint legally.

  3. hilsy on 23 Jun 2003

    Taggers are vandals period. I'm sorry if they are frustrated. But when they tag a building unauthorized, not just by the city, but unauthorized by the building's occupants, it is plain and simple vandalism. In my neighborhood, I liken it to an attack on my own home since I consider my neighborhood to be my home.

    I do agree, though, that two issues are separate. There needs to be some sort of legal allowance of murals while still restricting the IMHO despicable video-billboards and the like. One idea we had was not to limit content (unconsitutional in Oregon) but maybe limit the medium to paint only since the major advertising wall murals are prepared vinyl.

  4. Alexander Craghead on 23 Jun 2003

    At least they still let you do interior murals. If they didn't I'd be screwed right now....

  5. Dave Lister on 23 Jun 2003

    I agree completely regarding taggers being vandals. It is an act of vandalism and it is heavily prosecuted. First offenders are charged with felony mischief, not misdemeanor. I just meant that legal places to paint might cut down on the tagging. The vandals will continue to be so and they should continue to be prosecuted to the fullest.

  6. Alexander Craghead on 23 Jun 2003

    Isn't this specific case more a matter of free speech rights? After all, didn't they have the permission of the building's owner to paint it? We've got regulation of speech going on by the city, in this instance, in my view.

    If they want to regulate out a sign that specifically advertises something, okay, that's commerce. But any mural? Any???

  7. The One True b!X on 23 Jun 2003

    Well, the City has a sign code whose intent is to avoid having obnoxiously-huge or distracting billboards everywhere. But at some point it was determined (by a court, I asume, rather than by executive fiat) that the City couldn't just restrict commercial expression, because that wasn't content neutral. And so things like murals were considered restricted by the same sign code.

    Thus, it doesn't matter if a building owner gives permission, and it doesn't matter if the expression of the "sign" is non-commercial. Since the City's sign code has been forced to apply to expressions of any content, the City right the legal right to disallow murals.

    This is partly why some groups are working on restoring/saving existing murals before they go away -- if they already exist, they don't have to worry about the sign code.

  8. The One True b!X on 23 Jun 2003

    And just to be clear, I agree with you in terms of how messed up is this problem with the City's sign code. It's just going to take more legally adept minds than mine to figure out how to solve it.

  9. Alexander Craghead on 23 Jun 2003

    I guess it just PO's me more cause it's a bit close to home. It might have been a court, but on the other hand, this is not how the law is written in other cities. So it's possible it was the city attorney office's advice. I know that many decisions in my local community are made on our attorney's advice, without even getting any further than that.

    Like I said. Maybe I'm just being disagreeable because it's a personal issue. Thanks for covering it anyway. Haven't seen much traffic about it elsewhere yet.

  10. Alexander Craghead on 23 Jun 2003

    Oops, to clarify. I mean, if it were a court decision, I think other cities would have to abide by it too, but it seems they aren't eslewhere.... Just an assumption.

  11. ? on 12 Mar 2004

    Well well let me just say that the city of p-town is blind to the art of grafitti yes i say to the few its nothing but scribble on the walls done by a alone vandal but lets face it i put a face to it period! if i chose to live it blank then it would be boring unrecongnizeable and just pointless let me paint a face just dont discrace CTS...

Trackbacks (1)

  1. Baby, what'd I spray on 16 Oct 2004

    Portland bloggers are buzzing about the mural war that's raging down by the east side of the Morrison Bridge. It seems a business owner there is trying to have some artists put up a mural on his building, but they...