What is the problem here? He's a commercial painter working on a giant mural that's an advertisement either for Mike's or Coca Cola depending on how you look at it. Or it's public art. Whatever. On what basis would you want to waive a fee he's supposed to pay to do that type of work? Or on what basis would you not want to get paid for the parking he's taking up? Explain exactly how it is this fellow is different from anybody else doing similar work?
O Really wrote:What is the problem here? He's a commercial painter working on a giant mural that's an advertisement either for Mike's or Coca Cola depending on how you look at it. Or it's public art. Whatever. On what basis would you want to waive a fee he's supposed to pay to do that type of work? Or on what basis would you not want to get paid for the parking he's taking up? Explain exactly how it is this fellow is different from anybody else doing similar work?
I look at it as a public art mural of sorts, rather than an advertisement. It enhances the look of downtown by bringing some memorabilia to an otherwise drab looking street. The city ought to be grateful that the weathered sign is getting a facelift.
If I had been in a position to make the decision, I probably would have waived the parking. Not the occupational licence, though. It either has a purpose or it doesn't. If the requirements for having one are clear, I don't see that this guy is any different from anybody else who gets paid to paint.
I tend to agree with O Really. The guy is working in HVL and getting paid for it. If there is a fee for that why should he not pay it? Knowing the location, I agree the parking fee could be waived. In my view, it is another example of failed efforts of higher journalism education. It is really a non-story.