San Francisco institution 'heartbroken and furious' after erasure of public art
sfgate.com
sfgate.com
Feels like the most plausible explanation of what happened is the property owners got a blight citation[1] for graffiti on some other part of the building, and either misunderstood or miscommunicated to their employee what was supposed to be removed. I don't know why everyone is jumping to either "the owners are assholes" or "the owners get to do what they want it's their property."
[1] https://sfpublicworks.org/index.php/services/community-prese...
> Public art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.
> “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.
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.
> This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades.
Painting a wall is something that usually doesn't require a permit. Maybe some restrictions if the building is a historic landmark or something like that.
There almost certainly wasn't here, but owning property does not always give you unrestricted rights to do as you please with it.
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.
This should have been mentioned in the original article. It also should be obvious, I think. Why would you assume that high-quality murals created by an established institution were done without proper legal arrangements?
This is a completely fair assumption in San Francisco of all places.
As I understand it, here in Norway the propery owner would be entitled to destroy the murials entirely (but not alter or mutilate), by say painting over them in entirety. However they should then notify the copyright holder (artist) in advance so the copyright holder has time to document the murial.
Sounds like this wasn't done, but I don't know if there are similar laws over there.
[1]: https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=graffiti
Painting your art on someone else's private property is not.
Pushing your political agenda in public spaces is especially not cool. I just want to walk outside and enjoy the world, don't want your political agenda pushed on me.
i mean a modicum of reflection shows you that what you are suggesting would in fact be imposing your own political agenda on everyone else.
Clarion Alley Mural Project does great work maintaining Clarion Alley. (Including relations with property owners - this problem is an anomaly, there's been art there successfully for over 30 years.) Also worth knowing about Precita Eyes, a local community organization that manages murals in a lot of the city.
Common characteristics of public art are public accessibility, public realm placement, community involvement, public process (including public funding); these works can be permanent or temporary.
Independent art created or staged in or near the public realm (for example, graffiti, street art) lacks official or tangible public sanction has not been recognized as part of the public art genre,[8] however the popularity of some street artists have led to this notion being reconsidered by many.[9][10] Such unofficial artwork may exist on private or public property immediately adjacent to the public realm, or in natural settings but, however ubiquitous,[11][12] it sometimes falls outside the definition of public art by its absence of public process or public sanction as "bona fide" public art.[1]I think what happened here is the real estate management company viewed the murals as an encumbrance on the property (that would need some sort of negotiation or easement as a condition of resale) and decided to hire a contractor to make the problem go away, calculating that a fine (contractual or city-imposed) would be significantly less than the potential increase in sale value. I feel the contractor who painted it over is partly responsible morally, but legally and realistically such people are hired to do what they're told; asking questions about whether the right permits or agreements are in place for destruction of the artwork is a good way to get blacklisted by property management companies.
The property management industry seems weirdly hostile to any sort of public art. An infrastructural utility building near me had been decorated for years with ~15 mounted images by local artists highlighting interesting things about the geography and history of the area. A year ago the property manager had the entire building repainted in dull battleship gray (probably because it was cheaper than cleaning it), destroying all the artwork in the process. Now much of the building is covered in graffiti (mostly ugly low-effort tags), foot traffic along that street seems to have fallen, and perhaps not coincidentally there has been a rise in vehicle break-ins.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jun/08/dallas-fifa...
Comments about “private property” show a lack of cultural awareness. Such a shame.
and vice versa.
”Cool!”
“So do we”
”NooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!”
Or if I were unhappy, I would talk to the artist and/or the mural organization about it, ideally before they had put too much time into the project.
I certainly wouldn't wait more than a decade after the murals were finished and then on a whim decide to paint over them, erasing months (?) of artists' efforts in an afternoon.
I don't know why you are putting "mural" in scare quotes. The works in question are clearly murals, not just graffiti tags or something.
We must organize a special police unit to sweep the streets guns akimbo and end this public nightmare once and for all!
Private Property is how. People don't own other people's property for abstract reasons like they joined a club that once painted graffiti on walls.
>“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.
They claim to have arrangements with all property owners. Verbal arrangements are just as binding as written ones, though generally not a good idea as they are harder to prove.
> 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.
Your opening statement here is pretty ridiculous I need to say. "Written agreements doesn't mean shit!" Then you just make up a scenario where the contract wouldn't hold up.
Asking "is it cool if I paint your wall?" more than three decades ago doesn't create a contract or protect the work.
I highly doubt that street artists made a legally binding agreement with the owners that protects the art for the simple reason that this would be a ridiculous encumbrance on the property that would be unacceptable to most sane people.