Interesting twist on a debate we've had here frequently. In this case, the town declared the painting to be 'graffiti', fined the homeowner and ordered them to paint their house a solid color. No homeowner's association involved.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com...-20171208-story.html



Owners of Mount Dora house painted like van Gogh's 'Starry Night' masterpiece fined $3,100

MOUNT DORA — An attorney argued Friday before a magistrate in a code-enforcement case that a home painted in the style of Vincent van Gogh’s “Starry Night” masterpiece is an expression of the owners’ First Amendment rights.

“This was done for beautification of the city,” attorney Laura Hargrove said of the home along Old Highway 441 that draws gawkers. “Mount Dora is labeled as an artistic city.”

But Magistrate David Tegeler said he wasn’t there to consider the merits of the case. He already did that, ruling Sept. 29 that Nancy Nemhauser and her husband, Lubomir Jastrzebski, were in violation of city codes and giving the owners 30 days to comply.

Not only did they not comply, they “are snubbing their noses” at the city, said Sherry Sutphen, an attorney representing Mount Dora, noting that the van Gogh theme has been expanded from a wall in front of the home to the home itself.

She asked for the maximum fine for the violation, $250 a day, but Tegeler reduced it to $100 a day. He found Nemhauser and Jastrzebski not in compliance for 31 days, fining them a total $3,100. His earlier ruling required them to paint the house “a solid color, no graphics, no design, nothing that is going to end up attracting attention of the public.”

The owners had no comment, leaving City Hall quickly to confer with Hargrove about a pending appeal in circuit court.

But artist Richard Barrenechea, who first touched off controversy in July with his depiction of van Gogh’s famous 1889 painting along a 40-foot-wall, said he wasn’t surprised by the fine.

“It’s a beautiful mural in a home where there’s no homeowners association,” said Barrenechea, 48, who painted the house in the same style after the Sept. 29 hearing. “We don’t understand why they’re wasting money and resources from the people.”

Michael Hurley, 71, who said he is a handyman for Nemhauser, noted that Mount Dora calls itself “Someplace Special.”

“What’s more special than van Gogh?” he asked.

Remember when I fought the County over my military trucks? It's not just HOAs. There are plenty of municipalities with all sorts of crazy restrictions that most are unaware of, and that tend to be selectively enforced.

This Mount Dora in Florida? I recall it being small but a bit uppity. I’m not surprised.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
Remember when I fought the County over my military trucks? It's not just HOAs. There are plenty of municipalities with all sorts of crazy restrictions that most are unaware of, and that tend to be selectively enforced.

I actually did think about that case you told us about when I saw this story. I bet a dollar to a donut that a 'commissioner' or councilman lives nearby or the homeowner has pissed off somebody with juice and that is the only reason this is being pursued. Absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. I'd love to hear someone justify this nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
This Mount Dora in Florida? I recall it being small but a bit uppity. I’m not surprised.

The article is in the Orlando Sentinel, so I assume it's a local story.

That's a new one. Starry Night is graffiti. Land of the free. Home of the logical contortion.

I want to paint all the houses in my neighborhood with Frank Frazetta Mars series cover art.

I looked up the ordinances and what is interesting is the lack of a definition. Then I went to state statutes to see if I could find graffiti defined there. No luck.

But I did find Broward County ordinances that did define it, and it seems to be a reasonable definition. I would argue that his painting was not graffiti by any commonly known definition.

Broward county says:

quote:

Graffiti shall mean any writing, drawing, painting, inscription, figure, or mark of any type on any structure, public or private, or any other property, real or personal, that has been made without the consent of the owner of the property.

Seems to me that graffiti is only graffiti if it is placed on the property against the wishes of the owner. Otherwise, all painted surfaces are "graffiti".

Did you find any ordinances that gave magistrates the power to order a house pained in a solid color that won't draw any attention to it?

I'm gonna go ahead and guess the answer to that is
'No'

This magistrate is a numbnut loser on a power trip.

Tsk, tsk.

Apparently Mount Dora is allowing "graffiti" in commercial areas, but not residential. Come to find out the Magistrate disagreed with code enforcement. It wasn't "Graffiti", it was "a sign". "Signs" are permitted in commercial areas, but not in residential areas. Remember another recent story where the HOA was referring to Christmas decorations as a "sign"?

This is a landmark in Seattle. It was vandalized by some "Femynists", but was restored, and Divine added to the mural.

https://www.seattletimes.com/e...page-and-now-divine/

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
I want to paint all the houses in my neighborhood with Frank Frazetta Mars series cover art.

Had to look it up:

How about "The Lost Trail" by Charles M Russell ?
From WikiArt
Good for all you folks out west for your North Wall.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
This Mount Dora in Florida? I recall it being small but a bit uppity. I’m not surprised4.

Yep, off of 441, bour 25 min from mom's

Our code enforcement guy was kind of a prick.
Grass too tall? Ticket!
Fence too short or too tall? Ticket.
Motor home in your driveway? Ticket.
Boat out front? Ticket.
And if you watered your lawn during a drought?
Ticket.
Lots of obscure stuff. And the worst part? Each day in violation was a separate offense. Could cost you lots really quick.

Glad they can't see my house from the public road, so if they can see my house, they are trespassing.

sounds like the 'magistrate' is trying to make up his own laws

bypass the prick and take it to appeals

then when you win, go after the 'magistrate'

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Did you find any ordinances that gave magistrates the power to order a house pained in a solid color that won't draw any attention to it?

That clarifies the issue for me very well. Thank you.

Well....it is really a pretty crappy imitation of a "Van Gogh".

I would consider it "grafitti" too.

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:
Well....it is really a pretty crappy imitation of a "Van Gogh".

I would consider it "grafitti" too.

So, despite the legal definition of graffiti, you would declare it to be graffiti and agree with the magistrate's decision?

Being who I am, I would drive them to change their laws so that a house had to be a solid color. Then I'd paint it neon pink.

After that I would drive them to outlaw neon pink paint, and paint the house white. Then I'd install neon pink flood lights.

We could go round and round and round for as long as they wanted to play their games. I think it is outrageous that any public government wishes to be this involved in our lives. Guys like me can come up with legal annoyances much faster than those types can pass laws.