Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm more concerned about the fake lying news where EVERY outlet is OMITTING the FACT that the property started out with the LITERAL advertising sign.
And that the "artist" can easily be found, now.
The homeowner is about to find out how fun it is to live with that mess after spending thousands to appeal a ruling IF she wins.
The fact that the person who painted the house posted a temporary sign on the property is much ado about nothing. I bet that numerous other house painters/siding installers/window replacers do the same. Does the city prosecute those people under their sign ordinance as well?
The appearance is that the city had no ordinance dealing with how one can or cannot paint their house. So, using a bit of imagination, they used their sign ordinance as a way to try to prohibit this exterior paint job. Now it's up to the courts to decide whether using a sign ordinance in this instance was legitimate.
Having an issue litigated in court does not guarantee that a decision will be a good one--since judges are essentially politicians with law degrees. But, in the American tradition, it does give the defendant their day in court.
I'm more concerned about the fake lying news where EVERY outlet is OMITTING the FACT that the property started out with the LITERAL advertising sign.
And that the "artist" can easily be found, now.
The homeowner is about to find out how fun it is to live with that mess after spending thousands to appeal a ruling IF she wins.
I read the court document and I read the section of the law cited. We obviously interpret it differently so why don't we just let the professionals handle it. Hopefully we'll see the final outcome whenever it occurs. The first time code enforcement visited the house the advertising sign was removed which is noted in that document. Repeated visits, photos taken and court dates have occurred and there has been no further reference to it. The $100 a day fine that Mt. Dora has been imposing has nothing to do with that sign because it no longer is a factor in the dispute. That is being levied for failure to remove the graphics after having been so ordered, whether legally or not.
I wonder if Mt. Dora prosecutes every property owner that temporarily has a sign from a painter, a roofer, landscaper or any other contractor on the premises? If they don't what they're doing here is called selective enforcement. This will play out in the courts and someone will be paying big bills for attorneys - in this case that will be the taxpayers in Mt Dora; the property owners are being represented pro bono but even their lawyers may have grounds to seek their expenses from the court with a favorable outcome for their client which I predict.
Take your complaint about the media elsewhere, start a new thread or just grumble to yourself - it's not relevant here.
Yeah, right. Until the day you decided to sell your home and found out no one would come to the open house or make you an offer. That house in the picture is worth nothing, except maybe to some ex hippie.
Sometimes, being different is not a good thing.
Oh, they'd probably paint it if they were going to sell it. In a few years, that mural is going to start to flake and peel, and it's gonna be a hot mess. I feel sorry for the neighbors, whose property values have probably fallen a bit -- who would want to buy a pretty house next door to THAT?
We had a house in our area that was painted as a football field, in protest of zoning changes that wouldn't allow the owner to subdivide and sell off parcels:
You can imagine how the neighbors reacted -- it went on for several years. Zoning was eventually addressed, he sold the parcels, and the house came down.
I love Van Gogh's The Starry Night very much. I appreciate the freedom to paint your house in the manner you want, and I think the city rightfully should be facing an uphill battle. Probably prefer this silent nuisance to top volume parties, tinkering with a yard full of half dead muscle cars, a pack of dirt bikes, family mayhem in the wee small hours. Come to think of it, they could have painted it on the INSIDE of the house where they could enjoy it in peace.
This seems to be waving a red shirt at a bull. Maybe that was the real point.
You are right!
It started with homeowners painting their ugly stucco fence: the city called it graffiti and demanded removal.
Allegedly the code enforcement officer said that the wall must match the house.
So the homeowner”matched” the house to the wall.
The city does not specify a paint colors in the city code. The next step the city is using a broadly written code for signs ( whatsoever could be the sign)
The locals allegedly blaming all “ Yankee” city council- they moved to Fl and try to “ straighten out” the city. http://www.mountdorabuzz.com/arts--e...ount-dora-wall https://wtfflorida.com/news-articles...an-gogh-mural/
It reminds me of the Voltaire quote: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!
Always thought that the best thing about USA is the strong respect for property rights! Is it a sign of a weakening of the private property rights?
The fact that the person who painted the house posted a temporary sign on the property is much ado about nothing. I bet that numerous other house painters/siding installers/window replacers do the same. Does the city prosecute those people under their sign ordinance as well?
The appearance is that the city had no ordinance dealing with how one can or cannot paint their house. So, using a bit of imagination, they used their sign ordinance as a way to try to prohibit this exterior paint job. Now it's up to the courts to decide whether using a sign ordinance in this instance was legitimate.
Having an issue litigated in court does not guarantee that a decision will be a good one--since judges are essentially politicians with law degrees. But, in the American tradition, it does give the defendant their day in court.
This is what I think too. They had so many complaints about it so they tried to fit the issue into a code where it doesn't belong. I think the homeowner has a strong case, and I would expect that the city will create a "distracting paint" code to prevent this in the future.
This is what I think too. They had so many complaints about it so they tried to fit the issue into a code where it doesn't belong. I think the homeowner has a strong case, and I would expect that the city will create a "distracting paint" code to prevent this in the future.
The town is in the wrong. In the USA we're supposed to have something called "freedom of expression". Frankly it's appalling that a town would punish someone for PAINTING THEIR HOUSE a certain way.
Agree 100%
We do have freedom of expression.
I wouldn't care one way or another, even if I lived next door to them. I personally think that it looks kind of cool
If I were going to buy a house on that street, having the Van Gogh house wouldn't stop me. I would actually be more inclined to buy I think.
Screw what the town thinks. It's not the town's property. I could see the town having the right to fine these people if they had drawn "Starry Night" all over the Town Hall but their own privately-owned home? Nope.
If I'm paying the mortgage and it's on my own property, I should be able to paint it whatever color or crazy design I want to.
I don't even know why this is such a big deal any how? It's just a painting on a house...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
