Nancy Nemhauser and Ludomir Jastrzebski were fined $100 per day for the crime of painting their home and property fence like a Van Gough piece of art. The mural is stunningly artistic, but the city is basically claiming Nemhauser and Jastrzebski don’t own their home by fining them over $8000.
The daily fines will continue until the painting, an homage to Van Gogh’s “Starry Night,” is removed from private property. Mount Dora, Florida officials say the mural violates the city’s sign ordinance. The homeowners have been fighting the city for months to keep the mural on their home. But should the courts (owned by the government) declare the mural removed, it means the homeowners don’t own and cannot do with their property as they see fit. They may only ask permission to alter government property. The dictatorship many fear is already here.
“It’s an artistic town and here we are fighting the city for this art mural,” said Richard Barrenechea, the artist who painted the mural. “I hope a lot of people come tomorrow to see it and we find more supporters.” Art enthusiasts getting ready for this weekend’s Mount Dora Art Festival. Art enthusiasts have wide-ranging opinions when it comes to the mural. “It’s beautiful,” said Rosemaire Gomez. “I love it. It’s heart. They [the city] shouldn’t have a problem with it.”
The Mount Dora Art Festival starts Saturday and runs through Sunday. As for the mural, the homeowners are expected to file a brief to appeal the city’s fine.
#1: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
It says nothing about ownership, you idiot. It says the mural violates the city’s sign ordinance.
misterwhite posted on 2018-02-06 10:30:15 Reply Private Reply
#2: Stoner To: misterwhite (#1)
Well, I certainly would not want to live next to such hideous stuff !!
The people that pained their house like that are idiots !!
Glad I live out in the boonies !
Stoner posted on 2018-02-06 10:36:15 Reply Private Reply
#3: Hank Rearden To: misterwhite (#1)
It's not a sign, dopey.
Hank Rearden posted on 2018-02-06 10:55:40 Reply Private Reply
#4: misterwhite To: Hank Rearden (#3)
That's your defense?
Pathetic.
misterwhite posted on 2018-02-06 11:01:01 Reply Private Reply
#5: misterwhite To: Stoner (#2)
But ... but ... it's a tribute to Van Gogh.
misterwhite posted on 2018-02-06 11:03:56 Reply Private Reply
#6: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#5)
It's a rather bad tribute to Van Gogh. It's garish.
If it was less awful, it might not have drawn fines from the local gestapo.
It is notable here that the city is behaving as though every house is in a homeowners' association. If they have the power to stop the bad Van Gogh house, they have all the power (and more!) that any HMA claims.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-02-06 11:38:31 Reply Private Reply
#7: Hank Rearden To: Tooconservative (#6)
But it's not a sign.
Hank Rearden posted on 2018-02-06 11:45:28 Reply Private Reply
#8: Tooconservative To: Hank Rearden (#7)
The busybodiness of modern city councils seems very unrestrained by courts interested in private property rights. Including the right to paint your house in as a bad tribute to a noted Dutch artist.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-02-06 11:56:02 Reply Private Reply
#9: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#6)
It's a city-wide ordinance that applies to signs in general. If the citizens of that city want to change the ordinance, I have no problem with that.
I DO, however, have a problem with people who flaunt the law then appeal to the nationwide public to get their way.
misterwhite posted on 2018-02-06 11:58:31 Reply Private Reply
#10: Stoner To: misterwhite (#5)
Yeah, well, it still looks like shit to me, and I would not want to live near it .
Stoner posted on 2018-02-06 12:21:15 Reply Private Reply
#11: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#8)
So you're saying the residents of Mount Dora, Florida should not be allowed to regulate signs?
Wow! I'm not sure your form of government is any less intrusive.
misterwhite posted on 2018-02-06 12:35:24 Reply Private Reply
#12: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#9)
It isn't a sign by any conventional definition. They're making it up.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-02-06 13:40:22 Reply Private Reply
#13: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#12)
What. You think you found some clever little loophole? You don't think the city intended to include monstrosities like this?
Fine. Play your legalese games.
misterwhite posted on 2018-02-06 14:31:50 Reply Private Reply