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.
15 karma · joined September 9, 2026
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.
>“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.
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?
Perhaps it only seems so banal because the competition is so engigmatic.
And what does it mean for something to smell of "sterile detachment"?