George,

First of all, this discussion [about graffiti] is great. It's fascinating to read all the different entrys. I had no idea my little opinion would garner so much response. Here are some more thoughts, in reaction to the responses to my original letter:

Let me clarify that the original letter was my PERSONAL OPINION about graffiti and the art form. Sewell's response seemed to believe that since I did not clarify my feelings about private property ownership, I must be a socialist. Socialism is a whole different issue (look below). I find it fascinating that though my original letter was about graffiti, the discussion has offshot into economic theory...

But, back to graffiti. The issue of property ownership does play into the issue. Sewell does make a point (however nastily) that property owners have the right to do whatever they want with their buildings. Looking at this rationally, yes it is true. Property owners (like the owner of the Norcross Building) have the right to remove that graffiti if they please because they own it.

My personal view is that some graffiti is beautiful or controversial or both.(Not all is. Like all art some has thought behind it and other is shallow.) I find the CHS wall, for example, incredibly colorful and creative.My hope is that property owners who share my views may preserve some of the "vandalism" of their buildings.

Also, to clarify, I do NOT condone graffiti on houses or buildings that are under use. The reason I feel upset about the Norcross building's mural disappearence is that the building is vacant and no one is there. So why does whoever owns Norcross care so much about removing the graffiti adorning their walls? Well, I don't know. Though I personally feel they should have left the graffiti there, the bottom line is that whoever owns the Norcross building owns the Norcross building and they can do whatever they want with it.

And here's where the larger issue of socialism comes into play. Let's face it, it may not be so obvious since we live in one of (if not the) most affluent countries of the world, but the gap between the rich and the poor is huge and growing larger everyday. It's ironic that as a nation that waxes and wanes wistfully on and on about democracy and equality that there are still people who make less than a living wage. And, as the recent Enron collapse demonstrates, business can't be trusted to self-regulate themselves. The truth is that capitalism can not survive without government regulation and spending.

What we need is a balance of economy. In order for our country to be truly democratic we need less corporate oligopolies and more government spending on social programs like welfare and healthcare. Otherwise more business collapses like Enron are on their way.

To summarize, really we need a balance of private property ownership and public lands - universities, museums, parks etc.Then maybe we won't get so uptight about a few abandoned buildings covered in murals.

Looking forward to more responses.

Alex Davis (electronic mail, April 13, 2002)