> unanimous decision on Tuesday night to spend at least $600,000 of taxpayer money not just to shroud a historic work of art but to destroy it. I wonder what

> unanimous decision on Tuesday night to spend at least $600,000 of taxpayer money not just to shroud a historic work of art but to destroy it. I wonder what they can do for the homeless population with that money. With the numbers they have, probably not much, but it's also not nothing either. > For impressionable young people who attend school to have any representation that diminishes people, specifically students from communities that have already been diminished, it’s an aggressive thing. It’s hurtful and I don’t think our students need to bear that burden.” Thinking back at being an impressionable young person, seeing homeless people on the streets, in pain, yelling at passers by, or defecating in the streets would have been a lot more "hurtful" than seeing a mural. There is nothing wrong to worry about the message a mural sends, but it signals that they've solved all the other problems, and now, with nothing else left to do, to keep busy, they are taking care of repainting murals. It just doesn't make them look very competent.