Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
https://uwsboard.com/
What rent did they pay?ip_law-hokie wrote:When it’s rented out to be a graffiti museum, yes.Hokie5150 wrote:Being a tenant allows one to vandalize the building?ip_law-hokie wrote:You guys are also missing the fact fhat these artists were former tenants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s in the article.awesome guy wrote:What rent did they pay?ip_law-hokie wrote:When it’s rented out to be a graffiti museum, yes.Hokie5150 wrote:Being a tenant allows one to vandalize the building?ip_law-hokie wrote:You guys are also missing the fact fhat these artists were former tenants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Atta boy...ip_law-hokie wrote:Got it.HokieJoe wrote:Nope.ip_law-hokie wrote:You’d be wrong.HokieJoe wrote:F the 'artist(s)' and F the community. It's a personal property issue. End of story.133743Hokie wrote:Only in NYC would a judge rule in favor of graffiti artists over the property owner because of hurt feelings. Essentially, the ruling didn't say he didn't have a right to paint over the graffiti and to ultimately tear down the building, but rather that he was mean and spiteful (how dare they tell him what he can so with his building!) and didn't consider the feelings of the artists and the community.
The building owner needs to go over this bleeding hearts head all the way to the supreme court if necessary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It wasn't rented out as a graffiti museumip_law-hokie wrote:When it’s rented out to be a graffiti museum, yes.Hokie5150 wrote:Being a tenant allows one to vandalize the building?ip_law-hokie wrote:You guys are also missing the fact fhat these artists were former tenants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk