  > This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades.

As an owner, I can change what I permit or do not permit on my property on any whim, with no notice to anyone. That is quite literally what ownership means -- control of property.

▲ jacobolus 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some people have the legal authority to destroy public art. That doesn't make it a morally or socially acceptable behavior.

	▲	artisinal 16 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Is it morally or socially acceptable to paint over someone else's private property?
	▲	RobRivera 16 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Morality is relative

▲ zbrozek 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not here; being an owner just means you're liable for the taxes and still have to get permission from someone else to do anything with the space.

	▲	SoftTalker 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		To be a bit more nuanced, you can do anything with your property except that which requires permission or approval. NOT that you must get permission for anything you do with your property. The specifics can vary widely from locality to locality, obviously. 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.

▲ SR2Z 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not if there was a contract governing the property.

There almost certainly wasn't here, but owning property does not always give you unrestricted rights to do as you please with it.

▲ harimau777 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You are also a member of the community. That carries obligations.