"Painting over the mural would cost at least $600,000, with the majority of the cost in producing an environmental impact report. In addition, supporters of the mural have vowed to sue if the board voted to destroy it and legal costs could add to the cost, district officials said."
It's a little hard to square this with their other numbers, though:
"Other options included covering the mural with panels, which would cost up to $825,000, or obscuring it with curtains, which would have cost up to $375,000."
Maybe there is still small tiny amount of sanity left in San Francisco, and adding curtains doesn't require a full environmental impact statement? Otherwise it means that 1600 sf of paint costs the city at least $225,000. But if no EIS is required, it's hard to imagine spending that much on curtains --- or twice that on panels, for that matter.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-sc...
I, personally, have the exact same questions as you. Come on, 600 G's?
I'll fly out and paint it for half that if you guys really want it done.
https://reason.com/2019/06/20/george-washington-mural-san-fr...
off the subject...
intersectionalism, safe spaces, and more, and some wonder why independents are more horrified by one side of the aisle than the other? once thought, speech, and expression, are neutered nothing else much matters.
Shockingly, the rest of the state hasn’t seen quite as much.
It’s almost as if it’s how the public allows politics to work in general.