/ Neighborhood News - Southeast |
|
|
|
||
|
Oregon and SW Washington |
|
|
Home
Local News
Nation/World
Weather
Business
Sports
Blogs
Entertainment
Lifestyle
Classifieds
Contests
Automotive News
Education
Environment
Health
Home & Garden
Live Cams
Real Estate
Technology
Travel
Traffic
Video
Desktop News
Palm/PDA edition
Podcasts
Forums
E-mail newsletters
Phone Directories
News Feeds/RSS
|
Mural art poised to make comeback after City Council vote09:55 AM PDT on Thursday, July 2, 2009PORTLAND, Ore. -- A six-year battle over murals in the city of Portland may finally be over. City Council voted Wednesday to relax stringent rules on giant paintings on building sides and elsewhere. The new law draws a distinction between advertisements and murals while mindful of the state’s liberal free speech protections. Murals will now be permitted in city limits so long as they are hand-painted and remain up for at least five years. Some with commercial intent will make their way on to buildings as well, though the city ordinance aims to limit the “billboard” potential by stipulating that property owners with mural displays cannot receive ongoing compensation for the art. In 2003, Clear Channel sued the city for allowing murals but not billboards. Consequently, those around town with murals were forced to either board up portions of the images, take murals down completely, or else pay a $50-per-day fine. Murals became a part of the city's sign code. The Mirador Community Store's mural in Southeast Portland has been a focal point of the city's wall art controversy since 2003. Wednesday's decision will allow store owner Lynn Hanrahan to remove plywood covering two-thirds of the mural she had commissioned outside the store seven years ago. "That just hasn't been possible for us before and now it seems that it will be and we're very excited," she said. This all started in 2003. "The city was pretty stuck because they had been sued," explained Hanrahan. Under threat of $50 a day fines, she covered up the art and waited to see whether artists like Joe Cotter could sway the judge. Cotter intervened in the on-going court case and helped convince a judge about the differences between murals and advertisements. It was tricky, though, because the line between the two had been blurred; and the court already ruled it's unconstitutional to regulate the meaning or purpose of the images contained in murals and billboards. If everything goes as planned, the full breadth of her mural art will once again enhance the psyche at S.E. 21st Ave. and Division St.
This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow. This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow.
|
Advertising HomeCenterFree ClassifiedsShoppingCenterOther Services |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||