10-29-2018, 09:25 PM
(10-29-2018, 09:20 PM)Lens Wrote: The difference for me isn't as much about it being an ad as it is painting a giant downtown wall. The temporary park that was pitched was shelved and the site has been an eyesore for a few years now. I would have liked to have seen a mural (or something/anything) there a long time ago but now all we get is a massive ad.
The property owner would have had to pay for the creation and painting of a mural (maybe not inexpensive, given the size of the wall). In this scenario, North paid the property owner for painting the ad on the wall. Can you blame the owner?