Of course it makes perfect sense – to a liberal Judge, in a Liberal state! These are the same people who voted for Chuck Schumer and SECOND TERM Mayor DeBlasio! What did you expect? Common sense?
Is there a joke in here somewhere? I know you aren’t a frequent commenter on here, but if you do come back to explain yourself, I would love to know your thoughts.
People’s Republic? The award was based on a FEDERAL law, after a trial in FEDERAL court. But don’t let facts get in the way of your ignorance and bias.
So then how do the NY subways get away with wiping the graffiti off the train cars?
Further, the graffiti trespassers should have known their work would be destroyed by the property owner at some point. BS verdict.
A couple of commentators apparently didn’t bother to read the article before posting. It wasn’t vandalizm as the building owner let them to it. It’s not the same as a subway because that’s not privately owned. Here, let me post a few sentences you both apparently missed before you posted.
Jerry Wolkoff, who owned the buildings, had conceded he allowed the spray-paint artists to use the buildings as a canvas for decades but said they always knew they would be torn down someday. Block said he hoped the award would give teeth to a federal law that should have kept Wolkoff from demolishing them for at least 10 months, when he had all his permits. Artists then could have easily rescued some paintings from siding, plywood or sheet-rock before the rollers, spray machines and buckets of white paint arrived.
Mr. Wolkoff owned the property. It is his. He paid for it. As long as there is no violation of the law, he has the right to do with as he pleases. This is one of the major problems with our country now………. Bleeding heart liberals are ruining our country.
“As long as there was no violation of the law…” BINGO! In this case, there was a blatant violation of a federal law that has been on the books since 1990, and the developer has to pay the price for his violation. Don’t you conservative types respect the law? Don’t you believe in personal responsibility and accountability? I wish this reporter had more time and space to explain the circumstances, or at least to post a picture of the 5 Pointz buildings. This was an outdoor museum of legitimate art.
I am truly trying to understand this one. To me the owner being a jerk or not has no bearing. He owned the buildings. He allowed them to paint the buildings because they were his buildings. He then decided to remove the buildings. Also his right to do so. It would have been nice of him to allow time for the paintings to be saved but I also think he has a right to do whatever he wants with property he owns. I am torn on this one but it shouldn’t be against the law to do what you want with your property and there are no laws he has to be nice about it. He doesn’t have to care. Ideally he would but this seems wrong in many ways to me. Just my two cents.
“there are no laws he has to be nice about” agreed. but there are laws saying what permits you need to get before you can tear down a building, which he didn’t get — if he did apply for them, the artists would have known about the building demolition before it happened and been given an opportunity to remove their work
The “ARTISTS” are already trespassers. To allow them into the buildings or even on the premises opens the owner (s) to liability when these artists return to claim their “art”!
Fence it off, post the property, get the permits and tear down your buildings!
Block said he hoped the award would give teeth to a federal law that should have kept Wolkoff from demolishing them for at least 10 months, when he had all his permits.
Artists then could have easily rescued some paintings from siding, plywood or sheet-rock before the rollers, spray machines and buckets of white paint arrived.
I see. I misunderstood that statement. It sounded like he had the permits but they wanted him to wait 10 months and he didn’t. Now I see he didn’t have the proper permits. Thanks for the reply.
It’s his building, paint and all. Permits or no permits. That’s the problem with this country these days, property rights are being destroyed. We just rent our property from the government now.
5 Pointz was essentially a graffiti museum, a tourist attraction. It featured a multitude of works by true artists, not just some dirty words spray-painted by juvenile delinquents. The Visual Artitsts Rights Act has been on the books since 1990. I recommend that my fellow commenters conduct some research (because the reporter did not do very much, or was limited in the amount of space for this article), and see how extensive the art displays were. Get the facts and context, even if that may damage your prejudices.
So the rightful owner of the property is supposed to pay millions to those that vandalized his property? Makes sense!
Of course it makes perfect sense – to a liberal Judge, in a Liberal state! These are the same people who voted for Chuck Schumer and SECOND TERM Mayor DeBlasio! What did you expect? Common sense?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Are you serious?
In the post it says that they did not vandalize his property, he allowed them to do the graffiti.
The People’s Republic of New York City – What else would you expect?
People’s Republic? The award was based on a FEDERAL law, after a trial in FEDERAL court. But don’t let facts get in the way of your ignorance and bias.
So then how do the NY subways get away with wiping the graffiti off the train cars?
Further, the graffiti trespassers should have known their work would be destroyed by the property owner at some point. BS verdict.
A couple of commentators apparently didn’t bother to read the article before posting. It wasn’t vandalizm as the building owner let them to it. It’s not the same as a subway because that’s not privately owned. Here, let me post a few sentences you both apparently missed before you posted.
Jerry Wolkoff, who owned the buildings, had conceded he allowed the spray-paint artists to use the buildings as a canvas for decades but said they always knew they would be torn down someday. Block said he hoped the award would give teeth to a federal law that should have kept Wolkoff from demolishing them for at least 10 months, when he had all his permits. Artists then could have easily rescued some paintings from siding, plywood or sheet-rock before the rollers, spray machines and buckets of white paint arrived.
Mr. Wolkoff owned the property. It is his. He paid for it. As long as there is no violation of the law, he has the right to do with as he pleases. This is one of the major problems with our country now………. Bleeding heart liberals are ruining our country.
“As long as there was no violation of the law…” BINGO! In this case, there was a blatant violation of a federal law that has been on the books since 1990, and the developer has to pay the price for his violation. Don’t you conservative types respect the law? Don’t you believe in personal responsibility and accountability? I wish this reporter had more time and space to explain the circumstances, or at least to post a picture of the 5 Pointz buildings. This was an outdoor museum of legitimate art.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Genuine art, huh?
Get a grip.
Look up 5 Pointz and look at the photos. This was an outdoor art museum. Learn the facts, then get your own grip.
I am truly trying to understand this one. To me the owner being a jerk or not has no bearing. He owned the buildings. He allowed them to paint the buildings because they were his buildings. He then decided to remove the buildings. Also his right to do so. It would have been nice of him to allow time for the paintings to be saved but I also think he has a right to do whatever he wants with property he owns. I am torn on this one but it shouldn’t be against the law to do what you want with your property and there are no laws he has to be nice about it. He doesn’t have to care. Ideally he would but this seems wrong in many ways to me. Just my two cents.
“there are no laws he has to be nice about” agreed. but there are laws saying what permits you need to get before you can tear down a building, which he didn’t get — if he did apply for them, the artists would have known about the building demolition before it happened and been given an opportunity to remove their work
Why is he obligated to graffiti “artists”?
The “ARTISTS” are already trespassers. To allow them into the buildings or even on the premises opens the owner (s) to liability when these artists return to claim their “art”!
Fence it off, post the property, get the permits and tear down your buildings!
From the article:
Block said he hoped the award would give teeth to a federal law that should have kept Wolkoff from demolishing them for at least 10 months, when he had all his permits.
Artists then could have easily rescued some paintings from siding, plywood or sheet-rock before the rollers, spray machines and buckets of white paint arrived.
So when do “starving artists” get $6.7 Million for losing their art plastered on a dilapidated building? Insane!
I see. I misunderstood that statement. It sounded like he had the permits but they wanted him to wait 10 months and he didn’t. Now I see he didn’t have the proper permits. Thanks for the reply.
It’s his building, paint and all. Permits or no permits. That’s the problem with this country these days, property rights are being destroyed. We just rent our property from the government now.
5 Pointz was essentially a graffiti museum, a tourist attraction. It featured a multitude of works by true artists, not just some dirty words spray-painted by juvenile delinquents. The Visual Artitsts Rights Act has been on the books since 1990. I recommend that my fellow commenters conduct some research (because the reporter did not do very much, or was limited in the amount of space for this article), and see how extensive the art displays were. Get the facts and context, even if that may damage your prejudices.