5 ms·

The group supporting its removal alleges that it “glorifies slavery.” If you read the description of the painting, that’s just false and makes me skeptical of t

The group supporting its removal alleges that it “glorifies slavery.” If you read the description of the painting, that’s just false and makes me skeptical of the quality of the minds involved. This would be appalling even if it were free to remove the mural. With all the literal and figurative shit San Francisco has to deal with, it’s borderline criminal to waste more than half a million dollars.

BeeOnRope 7y ago
Another question is how painting 1,600 sq ft which is maybe half the area of the walls in a small house, costs $600,000. I'll gladly do it for a cool half million, and you can use the $100,000 saved to remove any other awkward signs of the past that might pop up in the future.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Sometimes people get so caught up in defending whatever side of some political argument that pragmatic matters such as price go right out the window. They stop thinking practically. The only thing that matters becomes their ideology or what have you. I, personally, have the exact same questions as you. Come on, 600 G's? I'll fly out and paint it for half that if you guys really want it done.
  - sslayer 7y ago
    I would like to believe that the steep cost is due not to destruction, but actual removal and preservation of the murals. To destroy these pieces of art is an outright atrocity.
    - Dangeranger 7y ago
      Unfortunately, it seems that removal and preservation are not the intent here, the aim is to destroy the art so that it cannot be recovered in the future.
  - brd529 7y ago
    The chronicle mentioned earlier this week that most of the $600k is supposedly for the mandatory environmental review. What a city.
- Shivetya 7y ago
  if they are truly set on destruction they won't merely paint it, they will first reduce the surface back to its original form them paint that. off the subject... intersectionalism, safe spaces, and more, and some wonder why independents are more horrified by one side of the aisle than the other? once thought, speech, and expression, are neutered nothing else much matters.
- gedy 7y ago
  Basically handouts to whatever union(s) and bureaucrats, which is how California politicians stay in power.
  - orpep90nxkfo 7y ago
    I was just reading about how McConnell has steered billions to the Paducah, KY region since coming to power. Shockingly, the rest of the state hasn’t seen quite as much. It’s almost as if it’s how the public allows politics to work in general.
- jpollock 7y ago
  The school board is required to do an environmental assessment first, that's where the majority of the cost comes from. https://reason.com/2019/06/20/george-washington-mural-san-francisco-racist/ https://reason.com/2019/06/20/george-washington-mural-san-fr...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  From what I had read, the majority of the cost comes from the mandatory environmental review, in a perfect storm of San Francisco governance idiocy.
- nkurz 7y ago
  According the SF Chronicle, the majority of the cost is in preparing the required environmental impact report: "Painting over the mural would cost at least $600,000, with the majority of the cost in producing an environmental impact report. In addition, supporters of the mural have vowed to sue if the board voted to destroy it and legal costs could add to the cost, district officials said." It's a little hard to square this with their other numbers, though: "Other options included covering the mural with panels, which would cost up to $825,000, or obscuring it with curtains, which would have cost up to $375,000." Maybe there is still small tiny amount of sanity left in San Francisco, and adding curtains doesn't require a full environmental impact statement? Otherwise it means that 1600 sf of paint costs the city at least $225,000. But if no EIS is required, it's hard to imagine spending that much on curtains --- or twice that on panels, for that matter. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-school-board-votes-to-destroy-14050025.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-sc...
  - tomatotomato37 7y ago
    What unholy things are they using that painting a wall is a half a million environmental risk?? If you take the average income and tax rate that's nearly an entire person's lifelong civic contribution dedicated to painting a wall
    - m0llusk 7y ago
      Painting the art might allow it to be restored later so they are making sure to destroy it. Destroying the art is probably going to break up the surface and generate a lot of dust, so there is an issue here though it doesn't seem like an obviously half million dollar issue.
      - tomatotomato37 7y ago
        That's both incredibly tacky and also kinda useless since this doesn't seem like one of those paintings that depend on texture or fine detail a ton, meaning restoring it can be as simple as creating a template off of a photograph and playing paint by numbers
- thinkingemote 7y ago
  These murals are part of the wall. They were painted whilst the plaster was still dry, the artist working right next to the plasterers. It's not an easy job to remove intact.
wutbrodo 7y ago
> makes me skeptical of the quality of the minds involved There are plenty of us who identified the problem at the heart of this movement ages ago: many interpret the movement to change the way we engage with history as filtered through their own, nuance-capable minds, in which case there are good points to be made about glorifying parts of history that we no longer agree with. But in reality, when movements hit any semblance of popularity, they need to be interpreted through the way most people approach issues: it's entirely unsurprising to me that the reaction to this mural is based on gut aesthetic reactions instead of an attempt to engage any brain cells in understanding the mural's intent.

BeeOnRope 7y ago

Another question is how painting 1,600 sq ft which is maybe half the area of the walls in a small house, costs $600,000. I'll gladly do it for a cool half million, and you can use the $100,000 saved to remove any other awkward signs of the past that might pop up in the future.

bilbo0s 7y ago
Sometimes people get so caught up in defending whatever side of some political argument that pragmatic matters such as price go right out the window. They stop thinking practically. The only thing that matters becomes their ideology or what have you. I, personally, have the exact same questions as you. Come on, 600 G's? I'll fly out and paint it for half that if you guys really want it done.
- sslayer 7y ago
  I would like to believe that the steep cost is due not to destruction, but actual removal and preservation of the murals. To destroy these pieces of art is an outright atrocity.
  - Dangeranger 7y ago
    Unfortunately, it seems that removal and preservation are not the intent here, the aim is to destroy the art so that it cannot be recovered in the future.
- brd529 7y ago
  The chronicle mentioned earlier this week that most of the $600k is supposedly for the mandatory environmental review. What a city.
Shivetya 7y ago
if they are truly set on destruction they won't merely paint it, they will first reduce the surface back to its original form them paint that. off the subject... intersectionalism, safe spaces, and more, and some wonder why independents are more horrified by one side of the aisle than the other? once thought, speech, and expression, are neutered nothing else much matters.
gedy 7y ago
Basically handouts to whatever union(s) and bureaucrats, which is how California politicians stay in power.
- orpep90nxkfo 7y ago
  I was just reading about how McConnell has steered billions to the Paducah, KY region since coming to power. Shockingly, the rest of the state hasn’t seen quite as much. It’s almost as if it’s how the public allows politics to work in general.
jpollock 7y ago
The school board is required to do an environmental assessment first, that's where the majority of the cost comes from. https://reason.com/2019/06/20/george-washington-mural-san-francisco-racist/ https://reason.com/2019/06/20/george-washington-mural-san-fr...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
wutbrodo 7y ago
From what I had read, the majority of the cost comes from the mandatory environmental review, in a perfect storm of San Francisco governance idiocy.
nkurz 7y ago
According the SF Chronicle, the majority of the cost is in preparing the required environmental impact report: "Painting over the mural would cost at least $600,000, with the majority of the cost in producing an environmental impact report. In addition, supporters of the mural have vowed to sue if the board voted to destroy it and legal costs could add to the cost, district officials said." It's a little hard to square this with their other numbers, though: "Other options included covering the mural with panels, which would cost up to $825,000, or obscuring it with curtains, which would have cost up to $375,000." Maybe there is still small tiny amount of sanity left in San Francisco, and adding curtains doesn't require a full environmental impact statement? Otherwise it means that 1600 sf of paint costs the city at least $225,000. But if no EIS is required, it's hard to imagine spending that much on curtains --- or twice that on panels, for that matter. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-school-board-votes-to-destroy-14050025.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-sc...
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  What unholy things are they using that painting a wall is a half a million environmental risk?? If you take the average income and tax rate that's nearly an entire person's lifelong civic contribution dedicated to painting a wall
  - m0llusk 7y ago
    Painting the art might allow it to be restored later so they are making sure to destroy it. Destroying the art is probably going to break up the surface and generate a lot of dust, so there is an issue here though it doesn't seem like an obviously half million dollar issue.
    - tomatotomato37 7y ago
      That's both incredibly tacky and also kinda useless since this doesn't seem like one of those paintings that depend on texture or fine detail a ton, meaning restoring it can be as simple as creating a template off of a photograph and playing paint by numbers
thinkingemote 7y ago
These murals are part of the wall. They were painted whilst the plaster was still dry, the artist working right next to the plasterers. It's not an easy job to remove intact.

wutbrodo 7y ago

> makes me skeptical of the quality of the minds involved There are plenty of us who identified the problem at the heart of this movement ages ago: many interpret the movement to change the way we engage with history as filtered through their own, nuance-capable minds, in which case there are good points to be made about glorifying parts of history that we no longer agree with. But in reality, when movements hit any semblance of popularity, they need to be interpreted through the way most people approach issues: it's entirely unsurprising to me that the reaction to this mural is based on gut aesthetic reactions instead of an attempt to engage any brain cells in understanding the mural's intent.