Planning gone bad and what's wrong with graffiti art?

The Chicago Tribune, not a very respected newspaper to begin with, posted this article the other day regarding a young graffiti artist who had jumped in the river to save his hide after being chased by police for tagging an abandoned building along an old industrial corridor in the South side of Chicago. His friends went to the building owner after his death and asked to put up a piece to dedicate to their friend, Jason Kitchekeg. The guy tags a building, gets busted, runs from the police and ends up dying. Then a memorial is placed on the building he initially tagged. Ironic, isn't it?

Vandalism to buildings such as this as often seen as increasing blight within in the neighborhood, huge scars on the community and decreasing property values in the area. The City of Chicago even offers free graffiti removal to private property owners. Yes, there are people out in the world who will vagrantly deface a property without consideration of the surrounding community or the property owner. And in some areas, it is often associated with gang activity. But urban graffiti art has transformed some neighborhoods into places where stories are told through

the art they produce.

For instance, look at graffiti art in San Francisco, particularly the Mission District or the Lower Haight neighborhoods. Or artists like Ron English who did the Obama/Lincoln propaganda campaign. His art isn't graffiti, but he did it in a guerrilla style initially, so what's the difference? And Banksy, whose work is incredibly beautiful and though provoking, also a graffiti artist turned high art? Is that what makes it ok? This site offers a great insight into modern day artists, who, with permission, are creating works of art for all to enjoy. It only ad

ds to the visual stimulation of the city. An active participation. Yes, art is in the eye of the beholder.

And this building, on 2841 S. Ashland Ave, has been vacant for a long time. So long, that in 2008, the city issued the owners a demo notice to secure the building due to past complaints. In addition, if you look at the tax collectors page of the property, it would seem that the company has not paid their taxes for 200/2009 either (however, that could be that the county is behind in updating their records). When do we decide that enough is enough and just bring the building down?

So my question is this, what causes more blight; abandoned buildings that the city has let remain vacant and unused, or the stylized art that adds a new dimension to the urban fabric we see every day? Wouldn't it be better conceived to actually make building owners pony up, secure their buildings and pay their debts or actually develop the parcel? And if they are so behind in their taxes, shouldn't the city just take the property and secure the building that they do not want tagged? And why not offer assistance with demolition? Is it really worth some kid dying for it?

Maybe if we got graffiti like this, no one would complain anymore?

<