Only in Fairyland...

e.g. Youngstown Ohio is the kind of place where both your college girlfriend _and_ her ex-boyfriend from high school have a story about some cletus attempting to rape them in a van

Utter bullshit. Minneapolis is far nicer than NYC, as is Indianapolis. Columbus isn't all that bad, either. I'm sure there are others, as well (KC?).

The murder rate went down because the mob made an exodus because the old ways of filching money were less valid.

snip

You must be confusing Ohio with Michigan.

Are you having a shitty day or something, punk?

Certainly he was the pits. He practically instigated fatal riots. (My uncle ran against Dinkins for Manhattan Borough President, which was his office before he was mayor. America Del Rosso was born during WWI. We always called him uncle Henry but he ran for office under his real name. I learned his name was really America when I saw a campaign ad in the paper.)

Oh no he was not. After Arafat got his Nobel Peace Prize and everyone was kissing his ass, he was invited to a concert gala at Lincoln Center as Bill Clinton's guest. Giuliani ordered the cops to throw him out, which they did.

Moynihan said Carter was "Unable to distinguish between our friends and our enemies..." Moynihan wouldn't say it but the same is true of many Democrats especially Obama and Clinton. Giuliani knew what an enemy is and how to treat him as such. That's not a RINO.

My cop friends said when they gave a mere ticket for jumping the subway turnstile, they would check if there was a bench warrant on the guy. Often he was supposed to have appeared in court on an earlier charge. Then they'd arrest him. Before Giuliani they were told to avoid making arrests unless they witnessed a felony or there was somebody there pressing charges.

Big Mac II?

If you think the mob committed most of the murders you really are always...you know.

No but you had to be there to feel the atmosphere. It was a dump because the leftists were free to do everything their way. After Giuliani the way they do things is at least sometimes challenged.

When a team in whatever sport won a championship in LA or Detroit or Miami people rioted and burned cars. In NYC when the Yankees win we have a parade with 2 million people lining the street and nobody burns anything. We like our city. Lots of small cities have as many drug addicts per capita, but they have nothing much on the plus side.

With respect I am aware of what it was.

Audubon has an ongoing mural project in the city which is sizable, and they're using many artists from this same community.

snip

Of course you should be able to, if there was no exchange of value true contract. The owner was simply doing the vandals a temporary favour, which should be rescindable at anytime. If the vandals actually paid for the right to vandalise the owners walls with paint, it would be different.

-- Kevin Aylward

I agree. Someone vandalises your walls with paint, and the vandals get to to sue you for cleaning their shit up. Its insane.

-- Kevin Aylward

If you'd read the article you'd know that the art was originally installed _with the owner's permission_ as a way to generate interest in the location. And over time it became a landmark/point of cultural/historical interest.

It's sort of the equivalent of a developer who owns say a historic 1920s art-deco building that while not particularly useful as-is the population is fond, but who realizes that he can make way more money by building a modern high-rise on the land.

And while the negotiation process is underway in an attempt to save it as a historic landmark in the middle of the night the owner comes and knocks it down. Well now that there's no building anymore guess there's no use in trying to preserve anything, yeah?

An extremely cynical act; profit for years from the artwork being fondly thought of as a "public good" but then destroy it when you determine it to be no longer useful to you.

No doubt about that. DiBlasio is sending it back to the Dinkins past

- probably worse.

So what? It's still the owner's property. He can change his mind and even do maintenance on *his* property (for you lefties, that may include paint).

He can, as long as he hasn't contracted to keep his property the same. If he too taxpayer's money (including tax breaks), he's stuck. Otherwise it is still his property.

Utter nonsense. As usual.

There's laws on the books about public art, and a court was going to hear the dispute, when the landlord destroyed the works with a coat of paint. This wasn't under any time pressure for construction (he didn't have permits for that), it was just to keep the artists from being heard in court.

Courts don't like that. This time, the judge awarded damages.

Lefties do rule some places.

Judges don't need no steenkin' laws.

THIS is what happened. Thanks.

Krw would prefer to live in a world where everything is owned by someone and e.g. the "property owner" of the Grand Canyon can decide to use it as a coal sludge depository on a whim.

And why is the "property owner" of the Grand Canyon you and not someone else? "Bitch because I said so"