> “We’ve tried to approach what happened assuming there was no ill intent,” Torres of CAMP wrote in the Thursday letter. “Still, after nearly 35 years of stewarding this alley, we have to ask: How does the erasure of four longstanding community murals happen without any communication with CAMP or the artists involved?”
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."
>“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?
Yeah, my complaint was with the article. Why leave out such an important piece of information? Why not dig into the agreements and understandings? You say it is obvious, but to me it is not. I know of several works of wall-sized graffiti and similar that just had a verbal agreement, which would be very vulnerable if the property got new owners or management.
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.
This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades. Anyone owning property there is well aware of it. If someone ordered murals painted over there, it was because they were deliberately trying to destroy celebrated public art.
> “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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Seeing the world through property rights is so one-dimensional and devoid of any creative thought it makes me sad as well. Eventually this is the SV ethos - own, conquer, extract, no space for externalities like simple urban pleasures.
Libertarians are unable to conceptualize what 'art' even is. It doesn't bring in financial benefit, so what is it for? If it's not an advertising board with your company's logo on it, it's worthless wasted space.
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.
Clarion Alley is totally worth a visit when you're in San Francisco. It's right in the middle of the Mission near a bunch of great places to eat and drink. Balmy Alley is a 10 minute walk away and another great street art gallery.
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.
Looked it up on Google. I don't like people claiming public space to push their personal agenda. Those alleys are for everyone, stop using it for your personal agenda. Please make a-political art.
Quite a shame to lose art like this, but without a process to preserve, display, and maintain such artwork, (like a museum is equipped to do), this kind of destruction is inevitable. At the very least we can be grateful for all the years it was available, but such is the way of all things, nothing lasts forever, and I think the story of the end of such works of art is also part of the artwork as well.
But that's pretty much what that institution does. It might not seem that impressive because it's a neighborhood rather than a city- or state-level institution, but they've been going for decades and organize things like mural tours, regular cleaning and so on; I used to live in that neighborhood and remember as being very proactive about taking care of murals as a community resource, fostering young artists etc.
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.
The property is owned by Makras Real Estate a notorious slumlord who has been convicted of fraud. They don't respect their tenants, they're surely not going to respect public art.
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]
Isn't inherent impermanence one of the factors that make street art art? If we treat graffiti like museum pieces exposed outside instead of inside, we don't do justice to them (and we end up in these kind of ridiculous situations). Graffiti are defaced, painted over, repainted, even modified over time. They're intrinsecally not immutable. If we think of them as immutable, they're just spray-painted art brut that happens to be on a wall instead of a picture panel - not very interesting.
If my property bordered an alley where literally every surface had been covered in murals for decades, and I discovered that the organized non-profit coordinating murals in that alley, who had a long-standing relationship with all of the property owners, had set an artist up to paint a new mural there, then I would be happy, yes.
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.
Historically murals in that area have been planned, agreed with the property owners, and funded by local nonprofits or donation drives. They're community projects, not renegade takeovers. Using scare quotes to delegitimize it is a cheap shot. I think you're assuming that because some of the painting in the alley was just tagging, all of the paint on the walls was unpermitted vandalism.
It depends what the mural was of? If it was a pro KKK mural I would object. If it was some of the pictures in the article, that would be pretty sweet. If it was some of the other murals I've seen, I would be thrilled.
If you bought a house on Clarion Alley, would you be a douche bag and paint over the murals? That's the actual question about this situation. What is your hypothetical about?
>“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.
written and verbal agreements is incredibly vague. This could mean as little as "Sure you can paint a mural on my building", or any number of agreements that don't transfer ownership rights. They don't say that they have a written agreement allowing indefinite usage of the wall for murals. Allowing a mural to be painted is not a transference of ownership and is not an agreement for the owner to never paint over it.
> 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.
I think I saw elsewhere that the owner has been the same for 35 years or something like that. So there is no relevant transfer of ownership.
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.
They do not define what their written or verbal agreements are, it is as simple as that. That statement would mean its possible they asked 35 years ago got a shrug and some guy saying "sure" OR it could maximally be a full contract with permanent transfer of the right of painting the wall. If this organization uses a vague statement, then its fair to take the vagueness is the worst possible way for them.
His point is that "written and vegan agreements" is not the same thing as "has a contract" and that the legal niceties need to be respected or else it would be impossible to get anything done.
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.
>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.
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.
Saying "It's Private Property" shouldn't necessarily just end the debate. Private property does have a uniquely powerful status in US law, but its absolute ability to override all other concerns, such as collective social needs, cultural expectations and norms, environmental concerns, and so on, at least deserves discussion. Finding the right balance between private property rights and the public good is something that courts continue to wrestle with.
> “We’ve tried to approach what happened assuming there was no ill intent,” Torres of CAMP wrote in the Thursday letter. “Still, after nearly 35 years of stewarding this alley, we have to ask: How does the erasure of four longstanding community murals happen without any communication with CAMP or the artists involved?”
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.
This is one of the sources for the linked article:
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?
Yeah, my complaint was with the article. Why leave out such an important piece of information? Why not dig into the agreements and understandings? You say it is obvious, but to me it is not. I know of several works of wall-sized graffiti and similar that just had a verbal agreement, which would be very vulnerable if the property got new owners or management.
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.
If they had verbal agreement it is not graffiti.
The dictionaries disagrees[1][2], but lets call it graffiti-styled street art then. Guess graffiti is perhaps a bit more a general term here[3].
[1]: https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=graffiti
[2]: https://www.britannica.com/art/graffiti-art
[3]: https://snl.no/graffiti
>> done without proper legal arrangements
This is a completely fair assumption in San Francisco of all places.
This alley has consisted of mostly murals for several decades. Anyone owning property there is well aware of it. If someone ordered murals painted over there, it was because they were deliberately trying to destroy celebrated public art.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some people have the legal authority to destroy public art. That doesn't make it a morally or socially acceptable behavior.
Is it morally or socially acceptable to paint over someone else's private property?
Morality is relative
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.
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.
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.
You are also a member of the community. That carries obligations.
it's pretty sad reading the comments in this thread. one senses both the cause and the result of SF's declining cultural relevance.
Seeing the world through property rights is so one-dimensional and devoid of any creative thought it makes me sad as well. Eventually this is the SV ethos - own, conquer, extract, no space for externalities like simple urban pleasures.
Libertarians are unable to conceptualize what 'art' even is. It doesn't bring in financial benefit, so what is it for? If it's not an advertising board with your company's logo on it, it's worthless wasted space.
Art is cool.
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.
Clarion Alley is totally worth a visit when you're in San Francisco. It's right in the middle of the Mission near a bunch of great places to eat and drink. Balmy Alley is a 10 minute walk away and another great street art gallery.
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.
Looked it up on Google. I don't like people claiming public space to push their personal agenda. Those alleys are for everyone, stop using it for your personal agenda. Please make a-political art.
No. I will not make apolitical art.
That is fine. Just don't use private property in the public space for it. Put it in an art gallery somewhere.
Hero.
Pushing your personal agenda in public spaces on people by using someone's private property makes you a hero?
Yes. Otherwise, only those with money get to choose what messages are shown to the public.
Quite a shame to lose art like this, but without a process to preserve, display, and maintain such artwork, (like a museum is equipped to do), this kind of destruction is inevitable. At the very least we can be grateful for all the years it was available, but such is the way of all things, nothing lasts forever, and I think the story of the end of such works of art is also part of the artwork as well.
But that's pretty much what that institution does. It might not seem that impressive because it's a neighborhood rather than a city- or state-level institution, but they've been going for decades and organize things like mural tours, regular cleaning and so on; I used to live in that neighborhood and remember as being very proactive about taking care of murals as a community resource, fostering young artists etc.
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.
The property is owned by Makras Real Estate a notorious slumlord who has been convicted of fraud. They don't respect their tenants, they're surely not going to respect public art.
Murals are a part of nearly every city in the world.
Comments about “private property” show a lack of cultural awareness. Such a shame.
So you are OK with it if I paint a big mural on your car, home, laptop, phone?
That’s not what happened here. Your strawman is showing.
>Comments about “private property” show a lack of cultural awareness.
and vice versa.
Won’t anyone think of the poor SF landowners
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49600627#49634171
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_art
“We graffiti people’s walls”
”Cool!”
“So do we”
”NooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!”
Isn't inherent impermanence one of the factors that make street art art? If we treat graffiti like museum pieces exposed outside instead of inside, we don't do justice to them (and we end up in these kind of ridiculous situations). Graffiti are defaced, painted over, repainted, even modified over time. They're intrinsecally not immutable. If we think of them as immutable, they're just spray-painted art brut that happens to be on a wall instead of a picture panel - not very interesting.
It seems like public art is always in danger of being erased when it's nobody's official job to protect it.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jun/08/dallas-fifa...
[dead]
There's a never ending supply of douchebags in this world. Such a shame.
It's too bad. It takes no effort or creativity to destroy art. Just a jerk with a pressure washer or paint roller.
So, if you walk out one morning and find that someone painted a "mural" on the side of your house, you'd be happy about that?
If my property bordered an alley where literally every surface had been covered in murals for decades, and I discovered that the organized non-profit coordinating murals in that alley, who had a long-standing relationship with all of the property owners, had set an artist up to paint a new mural there, then I would be happy, yes.
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.
Historically murals in that area have been planned, agreed with the property owners, and funded by local nonprofits or donation drives. They're community projects, not renegade takeovers. Using scare quotes to delegitimize it is a cheap shot. I think you're assuming that because some of the painting in the alley was just tagging, all of the paint on the walls was unpermitted vandalism.
It depends what the mural was of? If it was a pro KKK mural I would object. If it was some of the pictures in the article, that would be pretty sweet. If it was some of the other murals I've seen, I would be thrilled.
If you bought a house on Clarion Alley, would you be a douche bag and paint over the murals? That's the actual question about this situation. What is your hypothetical about?
That depends on why, in this scenario, have I not walked out of my house in thirty five years
Or jerk's boss or their boss or shareholders.
Like the people running AI companies? Yeah, the tech world certainly has a never ending supply.
Yeah man, I wish they stopped sketching stuff over other people's walls.
"Oh nooooo, my boring, ugly alleyway isn't ugly anymore".
Society must be protected!
Truly the scourge of humanity
We must organize a special police unit to sweep the streets guns akimbo and end this public nightmare once and for all!
Graffiti is not a culture, it's a blight on shared spaces.
> How does the erasure of four longstanding community murals happen without any communication with CAMP or the artists involved?”
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.
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.
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.
written and verbal agreements is incredibly vague. This could mean as little as "Sure you can paint a mural on my building", or any number of agreements that don't transfer ownership rights. They don't say that they have a written agreement allowing indefinite usage of the wall for murals. Allowing a mural to be painted is not a transference of ownership and is not an agreement for the owner to never paint over it.
> 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.
I think I saw elsewhere that the owner has been the same for 35 years or something like that. So there is no relevant transfer of ownership.
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.
They do not define what their written or verbal agreements are, it is as simple as that. That statement would mean its possible they asked 35 years ago got a shrug and some guy saying "sure" OR it could maximally be a full contract with permanent transfer of the right of painting the wall. If this organization uses a vague statement, then its fair to take the vagueness is the worst possible way for them.
His point is that "written and vegan agreements" is not the same thing as "has a contract" and that the legal niceties need to be respected or else it would be impossible to get anything done.
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.
That statement does not say that CAMP had agreements with all property owners, and it is possible that they did not have an agreement with this one.
>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.
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.
Saying "It's Private Property" shouldn't necessarily just end the debate. Private property does have a uniquely powerful status in US law, but its absolute ability to override all other concerns, such as collective social needs, cultural expectations and norms, environmental concerns, and so on, at least deserves discussion. Finding the right balance between private property rights and the public good is something that courts continue to wrestle with.