" Interesting, so to continue with your logic Mr. Brown-Montenegro, can you were a long sleeve shirt in public from now on, because I'm just not considering your ink as legitimate art. In fact, everything you applied to the mural, could also be applied to your tattoos.

Those who live glass houses... "

" If you are going to bring up "eye sores" take a second to consider another piece of 'art' on 8th street; on the corner of 8th and Hamilton there is a wall sized mural of Jesus Christ crucified on the cross

Though far from tagging and graffiti, it is just as prominent in the communal eye as this new piece of art. I am sure that there are many people, including myself, who do not agree with the ideologies it represents... but hey im sure the artist went about the legal pathways to achieving his/her place on that wall

As always art is subjective, and before you go up in arms to remove this new masterpiece... think about it, simply that... think about it "

" The Griddle Story Made National News!!
AP
posted: 1 HOUR 1 MINUTE National News, Weird News CALEXICO, Calif. (April 30) - The hottest thing on the griddle at the Las Palmas restaurant these days isn't the food it's the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe that a cook says she saw on the griddle.
Restaurant manager Brenda Martinez says more than 100 people have flocked to the small town of Calexico on the California-Mexico border to gaze at the likeness of the Virgin Mary since it was discovered as the griddle was being cleaned.
http://news.aol.com/article/virgin-mary-griddle-sighting/457483?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link2|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fvirgin-mary-griddle-sighting%2F457483 "

" drussel
"continued-
Sec. 18-136. Responsibility of parents and others.
It is unlawful for any person to assist, aid, abet, allow, permit, or encourage another to

violate any provision of this article, by word, overt act, failure to act, or by lack of

supervision and control over minors.
(Ord. No. 94-8, Sec 3)

Sec. 18-139. Reward.
(a)Pursuant to section 53069.5 of the Government Code, the city manager is authorized to

offer a reward of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for information leading to the arrest

and conviction of any person in violation of section 594 of the Penal Code by the use of

graffiti.
(b)The person committing the graffiti vandalism shall be liable for the reward paid

pursuant to this section.

Sec. 18-141. Removal of graffiti.
(a)It shall be unlawful for any responsible person or owner's representative to permit

property that has been defaced with graffiti to remain so defaced for a period of fifteen

(15) days after having been given a notice of the violation unless the city manager, or

designee, determines that either of the following conditions exists: lack of finances or

active abatement program exists (truncated due to space requirements)
Contact City Hall. Demand the City abide by it's own ordinances.
Claim the reward... " "

" drussel
wrote on May 1, 2009 10:07 AM:

" briandonly- The City of El Centro Code of Ordinances is explicit...I'm of the opinion

that some at City Hall are choosing to ignore their own ordinance.

Sec.18-131, Definitions: (f)Graffiti means any inscription, word, figure or design marked,

etched, scratched, drawn or painted upon the surface of a building, structure, tree, shrub,

fence, walkway, light standard, sidewalk, or any other facility, regardless of the material

used on such surface, without the written permission of the owner, or owner's

representative, through the use of a graffiti implement or aerosol paint. "Graffiti" does

not include markings upon any surface for utility connections or service or for

construction activities authorized by law or regulation.

Sec.18-135 Application of graffiti-Prohibited.
(a)It is unlawful for any person to apply graffiti markings upon any surface or real or

personal property within the city, whether such property is publicly or privately owned.
(b)A violation of this section shall be prosecuted under section 594, 640.5, 640.6, or

640.7 of the Penal Code of the State of California, whichever is applicable.

Source-http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10962&sid=5 " "

" graceisamazing
wrote on May 1, 2009 9:48 AM:

" It looks like the same graffiti that is tagged all over the old trains by the Adams

curve. "



briandonley
wrote on May 1, 2009 9:47 AM:

" It was such a relief to read that I was not the only resident not enjoying the ghetto art

placed on the wall at eigth and mulberry. Maybe with strong support from our city hall and

grafitti abatement folks, who by the way seemed quite irritated when I called with the

complaint and referred me to Desert Oasis, maybe we can get the mess cleaned up. The girl

that takes the complaints should recieve them without an opinionated comment and process

them accordingly. " "

" farmallalfalfa
wrote on May 1, 2009 8:32 AM:

" I always knew Richard had a shred of decency hiding somewhere beneath those ink-riddled

forearms and his fashionable man jewelry. Great piece Mr. Browntenegro. "



marygb
wrote on May 1, 2009 8:28 AM:

" I am going to venture to say, "Lowes corporate office has no clue!" But, I don't know.
erollins, Drussel, Richard, holtville1, all of you are so on target with this,

"excuse/permission to do/witnessed/whose wall is it anyway''blah..blah..blah" I still would

refer to as: tagging!!
These homeowners need to amend their consent and have this "acceptable artwork to them"

re-verted to reflect into their hood. Hey, gives these kids a little more painting to do.

Make sure they wear the ol'mask, cause that paint stuff is toxic! " "

" drussel
wrote on May 1, 2009 8:18 AM:

" Richard- I know you check in from time-to-time and read the posts relative to you opinion

piece. I am curious about a few things regarding this work of "art"...

First, I'm curious as to whether or not, as some have alleged, the El Centro Police

Department actually stood by and, in a sense, sanctioned this 'masterpiece' and condoned

the apparent illegal act?

Secondly, has the graffiti been reported as yet to the graffiti abatement patrol? If not,

why? If so, why has this not been properly dealt with?

Next, is the painted side of the fence in question actually, as is contended, the property

of the homeowners in question, or is it the responsibility of others?

Did Lowe's knowingly violate the Calif. State Penal Code by either selling or giving away

spray paint product to a minor?

Have the responsible City staffers (city manager, public works, or whomsoever is

responsible) or City Council members been queried with respect to the 'artwork'? What are

their opinions on this?

Does silently condoning this display then mean that the City will henceforth ignore all

other acts such as this, and thereby declare that all graffiti is now 'art' and will no "

" holtville1
wrote on May 1, 2009 8:00 AM:

" Faith, Hope, Love - and the crown. Don't forget the crown that was prominent on the front

page. If you follow the youtube link posted by farmall you will see that it is indeed a

gang symbol.

These "reformed" taggers are evidently not ready to hang up their spray cans yet. "



erollins
wrote on May 1, 2009 6:33 AM:

" When I saw the art work on Eighth Street I thought This looks just like graffiti to me. I

am so glad you wrote this piece as I wondered if I was the only one who felt this way. We

have so many bad things said about the Valley by outsiders and here we are allowing this to

be painted on nice walls. Are we going to have to have another law? Why didnt they paint

the inside of the wall so the home owner could enjoy this in their back yards instead of

subjecting the rest of us to this ghetto art? " "