I see this response doesn't actually respond to

> Public art painted on someone's property. No mention of what kind of arrangement they had with the propery owner when they painted it.

▲

jacobolus 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From Mission Local, 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.

> 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.

	▲	mc32 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think we need to know the nature of the agreements (what did they agree to) as well as whether they are legally binding. Without that information we’re all left to guess.

▲

Zigurd 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It doesn't deserve a response. It's self refuting. The likeliest situation is there was no formal arrangement.

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.