City of Tacoma Targets Artists : Death to the Graffiti Garages: Update 2
January 17, 2008 · Print This Article
Just received a response from the city regarding the death to the graffiti garages, many of you want to know who to talk to. Feel free to contact Dan McConaughy at 591-2047 with any questions.
Good afternoon– Below is the response from Dan McConaughy of Building and Land Use Services — Public Works Department.
Dan said he would talk with you if you had any questions. His contact number is 591-2047.I am responding to the email sent to the Mayor’s office regarding the graffiti located at the parking garages at 723 Broadway. Code Enforcement received a complaint from the Tacoma Police Department regarding the graffiti. At that time an inspector went and verified the complaint. The parking garages have no doors and the graffiti was visible to the public. A “Notice of Violation” was sent to the property owner requesting that they voluntarily remove the graffiti from the property. Attached with the Notice of Violation are the procedures to request an appeal if the owner so chooses. No appeal was filed and the property was re-inspected on January 11, 2008 and found to be in compliance with city code. To my knowledge, all actions by the owner were voluntary.
Sincerely,
CindyCindy Leingang
Mayor/Council Office
I investigate code enforcement violations in my jurisdiction and this type of thing is a very standard procedure. Code enforcement is usually complaint-driven. Something that many may view to be of cultural significance may actually be a violation of code. If someone files a complaint, the City is obligated to conduct an investigation and take action, if necessary. A Notice of Violation usually makes reference to potential fines if the Notice is not complied with. The owner of the parking garage probably determined it would be much cheaper to comply than be forced to go to court over the matter and possibly be fined.
The code enforcement officer seems to have just been doing his job. The real culprit here is the city’s regulations, which were probably enacted with the intention of combatting gang activity. The garages just seem to be an unfortune victim of the good intentions of the ordinance.
So what does it take to commission “legal” graffiti art that can be seen publicly in Tacoma? What’s the process if anyone wanted to display this kind of work on an exterior wall or the owners of this garage wanted to recreate what was there? I’m pretty sure a memo from the city is in order to help calm any outrage. Be pro-active on this one, Tacoma. Let us know how public graffiti art can be legal
I wonder if you file a “compliment” the “complaint” can be negated?
—->I am responding to the email sent to the Mayor’s office regarding the graffiti located at the parking garages at 723 Broadway. Code Enforcement received a complaint from the Tacoma Police Department regarding the graffiti.<——
so said the explanation.
So, if TPD saw graffiti, which is against code, why did Riley paint out everything? Because the difference between graffiti and an urban-style art painted with a property owner’s permission is confused in the collective City of Tacoma Mind.
Riley allowed and gave constructive permission for the art to be created and to remain, and to be added to from time to time.
The art actually did belong to Riley and/or the artists.(He could have chosen to only paint out the graffiti and leave his art)
Is there no one in the City of Tacoma that knows the difference? Between art and vandalism?
That is the question !
Kevin, all it takes is an owner to say: It’s mine! It’s Art! Hands off, Philistine!
I shall blog on this issue since I had to ask and answer the same questions.
Embellish was able to have their wall painted with graffiti like art.
However, it happened voluntarily. I don’t think the owners of the garage, or the prior owners wanted it painted.
In fact, I believe Lorig owns it now and they were going to tear it down so they did not want have graffiti there. They may have been prompted by the city and not wanted to spend the cost of cleanup when it was going to be knocked down anyway. Yet, they were not going to stand up for the graffiti.
As long as building owners like Embellish can freely have alternative art that they choose on their walls, I don’t think there is a freedom of expression for art issue in Tacoma aside from RR Anderson’s issues with the list serve.
On the other hand, Graffiti artists are not entitled to have their paint remain on someone else’s property.
Oh, Lorig owns it now….well, that would explain a lot. Is it just a coninkydink that SafeStreets/City of Tacoma have just partnered on a gang prevention program…..graffiti is seen, rightly, as a challenge to authority…of any kind. That it is classified as a Public Safety and Human Services initiative, takes the controversy into the realm of Sacred Ground…(what, are you against public safety)KWIM?
and it is just flatly true: Authority doesn’t recognize the diff between art and urban art such as that on Embellish. Can we stop calling graffiti style art …graffiti? They are not the same thing. Art is applied to walls or wherever. If the property owner doesn’t want it, it’s vandalism, tho artful vandalism. It’s a PITA to paint out what you may not want, but I shed No tears for a property owner. Maintenance is part of the dealio, of making $ off an investment.
Now, if a property owner doesn’t remove it, like Riley left it there, that is constructive permission until revoked. And that is a different issue than graffiti which should be removed/painted over….no argument from me on that issue. As long as the diff between the 2 is understood, and Frankly, I know that it is not generally understood as 2 different things.
And all due respect, but there is a HUGE freedom of expression issue in Tacoma….non-mainstream artists know this. The history of art is chockAblock full of the controversy.
The difference between art and vandalism is obvious, it is a matter of permission.
The city understands what a mural is, but a mural painted by a potential gang member is considered vandalism. Thats as bad as profiling drivers based on skin color.
If Trish was able to do it, others can do it.
Anyone know the legal formula Embellish used that keeps the city informed of mural status?
Daniel, all one has to do if the city comes sniffing around is to tell them: “it’s my art” It’s a free-speech issue. Really about the only thing worth filing a suit over as far as art on a property owners wall, is a picture/message that incites a crime or hate ….it would have to be egregious and undisputable. And even then a governmental body or a “concerned citizen” group would have a huge bar to overcome, legal wise. Even the KKK is allowed to march through town!
The Supreme Court upheld Larry Flynt’s right to say: Jerry Falwell (f’s) his mother in an outhouse, as parody…..then I think “graffiti art” is safe. This is not to say that someone won’t be hassled about it, possibly, or forced to spend a lot of money to stave off a stupid lawsuit over keeping a piece of work, until they give up and paint out the art. That is what Lorig decided to do. Give up and let it go. Which is their right.
Larry Flynt has deep pockets and he was able to fight the good fight about art/writing/expression. I’m not a Flynt fan at all..I am a fan of our Constitution.