Newest comments on The Sacramento Press articles by Paul Cox

LDGK founder on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-12-08T15:10:01Z

midtown if all you do is worry about others all you ever find yourself doing is worrying so shut up because graffiti will never die

savemidtown on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-27T03:52:12Z

Well said Mr. Burg. And it's not very nice to ask residents to clean broken glass and the leaf sludge that inevitibly ends up in the gutter. Leaf sludge is slippery and very dangerous. Those who have lived in Midtown a while know what I'm talking about. Most Central City property owners do clean up the gutters in front of their property and many of them do dodge moving cars and work around parked ones. Our streets are very clean by comparison to a lot of places. I lived in LA & SF and we are far cleaner than either of those places.

William Burg on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-26T04:59:31Z

Remember, sweeping is only part of it: the "claw" picks up excess green waste, and while many trash cans are picked up on the alley, buildings without alley access (most properties on numbered streets, and many on lettered streets) put out trashcans in front of the building. The prospect of sweeping, say, L Street or P Street is a little daunting...how many property owners want to dodge traffic to sweep the middle of the street? Many downtown streets are used for daytime parking by residents who have no off-street parking (most of them) or downtown employees who drive to work and park on the street. Sweeping underneath parked cars is a huge pain in the neck! One other thing to consider: more than 90% of the residential units in the central city are multiple units, only about 10% are single-family homes. This means that most people in the central city, by a wide margin, live in apartments--building maintenance is typically done by a management company, whose maintenance ranges from meticulous to indifferent.

thsas on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-26T03:43:54Z

Most of my neighbors, and I, do exactly that every week when we mow our lawns. I looks to be pretty common?

Dale Kooyman on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-26T03:03:53Z

From your remark, it is obvious that you don't sweep the street in front of your residence. There are no 30 foot lots--the shortest street frontage is 40 feet. Residents who live on corners have 120 feet to sweep and clean. Actually, it can take great deal of time depending on the time of year, the amount of leaves and litter in the gutter, the weather, the direction and velocity of the wind, the age and physical condition of the sweeper, whether or not your neighbor sweeps his/her gutter and the tools the sweeper has to sweep since sweeping is only one part of cleaning a gutter.

William Burg on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-25T22:25:46Z

I fully agree with Ben here...street cleaning is one of those things you don't notice until it stops happening. Paying a few bucks a month to the city is a relatively small price to pay for clean streets--take a look at cities and neighborhoods that don't clean their streets (don't breathe too deep) for some comparsion.

Ben Ilfeld on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-25T21:40:38Z

I am not a fan. These are public streets and a public good. Their maintenance is both more efficient and effective if done collectively. I would not mind if the money was taxed based on land ownership, but I would hate to see streets less clean because many landowners ignore the rules. Unlike letting your grass die this would have a real impact on a public resource, our streets.

CCC on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-25T21:33:05Z

I like the idea of a communal clean, but who wants to sweep up garbage and filth that has nothing to do with them other than the fact it is in front of their house/apartment? That would be difficult to enforce.

Paul Cox on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-25T17:10:58Z

Correct, but in the context she was using it...specifically in the second sentence, the implication was that she thought it was twice a month.

William Burg on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-25T16:36:37Z

"bi-monthly" means "once every two months"

Paul Cox on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-25T16:19:51Z

Actually, as I stated I contacted the City and was told that it has been cut back to once every 2 months. So, it's possible you're out in the portion that's maintained by the county and their budget may be different. But downtown and in the City portion, it's once every 2 months, as stated by a City employee.

Paul Cox on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-25T16:18:19Z

I'd totally be up for that.

beerzie on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-25T13:08:46Z

Street cleaning is a waste of money and should be eliminated. Make the residents and property owners responsible. How long does it take to sweep 30 feet of street and gutter anyway?

Geoff Samek on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-25T06:35:11Z

For a completely subjective comparison, I lived in Berkeley for 4 years and found the street cleaning to be far less effective than it has been in Midtown since I have lived here for the last 2 years. The street signs in Berkeley also tend to reflect the actual cleaning dates and I assure you I received just as many tickets there, in fact I'd say that when the times are intermittent, or at least less often, you tend to forget that street cleaning even occurs.

trapper on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-25T03:26:28Z

A majority of Sacramento’s streets are cleaned bi-monthly, so I don't know what you’re complaining about.... maybe you Paul Cox should move there so you don't need to worry about this anymore?

Paul Cox on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-25T00:33:52Z

See, that's what I thought too, even though I live downtown and a majority of trash bins are put in the alleys for pickup. So, to be sure, in my e-mail I asked what services were included in the "Street Cleaning" mention on the signs and was sent this reply. >>> The signs that show no parking due to street cleaning entail both the street sweeping and the street service of lawn and garden debris. The other program that has been affected, in the solid waste department, by budget constraints is the neighborhood clean up program which has been suspended. <<<

Dale Kooyman on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-24T23:54:43Z

You are right. "Street Cleaning" can be a misnomer. I'm not defending the city but it is shorter to print on a sign than "Garbage, Green Waste and Recycling Pick Up," which are the other city services provided on that day and in that time period. I see in your photos that standing along the curb are the blue recycling and green garbage bins either ready for emptying or already emptied. I can't tell from your photos if your street is in the central city or a suburb--not that makes a difference really--except we in the central city have so many city street trees that drop their leaves, seed pods, blossoms, twigs, small branches, etc. year round that residents sweep them into piles for the "claw" to pick up, so that pick up is a form of cleaning--not sweeping, but it does clean the streets of those piles. We repeatedly have the problem of people parking in front of the bins or over the leaf piles during the pick up time. This means the driver has to get out and move the bins which is not always possible, so the service is not provided in those cases. It also means that when the property owner or tenant gets home and finds his/her bins not picked up, he/she must then call the city and the drivers must make another trip on another day to pick up the garbage and recycling when many cars are parked there. When a car parks over a leaf pile, then it is another week before it is picked up IF another car dos not park over it during the following pick up day and time. But the enforcement officer should have heeded your note--maybe raising the hood would have helped. Sorry that you got the ticket.

CurtisParkDuo on "How clean are your streets?"

2009-08-24T23:08:51Z

This frustrates me as well. I'd at least like to see some of the enforcement money go back in to help pay for more frequent street cleaning, especially in areas where they make you dump your green waste in the street. The logic escapes me.

thsas on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-30T04:30:02Z

We have lived in Midtown two years and we have had our property tagged three times. We were never tagged in downtown Seatte, where we lived for 15 years, so we were very supprised highly offended at this vandaliism. The last tagging was a month ago and cost us about $500 to repair. These acts harm us.

Paul Cox on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-15T03:19:44Z

I've talked to some and found that they have a certain method to the madness, as far as what they will or won't tag on, not that everyone follows those rules. Also, I've found some that see it as a form of expression regardless of where it is, I don't agree in that case.

Angela Murray on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-13T22:59:21Z

Clarification - my question does not indicate that I support graffiti on unapproved spaces, only that I wonder if part of the excitement of the expression of graffiti, to the artist, is that they are on an unapproved space. If the space is approved, will their expression be the same, or will they then be considered just another artist without the flair? I don't know the answer, it's just a thought, and is in no way an indication that I feel it is acceptable to deface - in whatever form - space that is not approved.

Casey Kirk on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-13T21:19:29Z

I can see valid points for both sides of the argument. While seeing a picture of a dumpster covered in sloppily scrawled names does not convey a sense of art, on the flip side some of the canvases could easily be displayed right next to masterpieces in gallery and no one would ever know the difference. "Upper class vandalism" seems to be a term for those that have not actually seen the works of art produced by talented artists. What many people might not realize is that although there is a stigma attached to graffiti artists, many of them are actual artists that are victim of circumstances and have never been given a platform to display their art. Rather, giving a space to graffiti artists to send their messages to the community is turning a potentially negative situation (vandalism) into a very positive one.

midtown on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-13T08:16:28Z

Second Saturday brought a rash of vandalism to midtown. I personally will chop off the balls of the next person I see tagging and stuff them down their throat.

Dale Kooyman on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-12T21:08:16Z

Good points, Thetye. Besides being a crime, it is a matter of respecting or disrespecting nature's products and other's property--whether residential or business.

TheTye on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-12T15:34:05Z

No matter how "enlightened" people get, spraypainting something on another person's property is a crime, no matter how pretty it is. If i was a "car keying artist", would you have the psuedo-progressive attitude twards a piece of artwork I scratched into your car's paintjob? I am an artist, but i also respect the fact that alot of people don't want me painting stuff on the side of their house. Its called being an adult. The reason that public art walls never work that well is the fact that most of the taggers are just vandals

William Burg on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-12T15:17:04Z

...and, just maybe, for the owners of the property that is being defaced?

Angela Murray on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-12T07:35:15Z

I like the distinction between graffiti and tagging - though society in general does tent to meld the two - they are seperate, and should be recognized and treated seperately. I don't consider tagging to be art - though it's a form of expression it is usually not pleasant for most people to look at anywhere. Graffiti can be artistic, but lacks a true venue, and as 54c refers to - it just is not the same experience when viewing it in a controlled environment. These days, however, what isn't a controlled environment - if someone paints graffiti on a space that isn't approved, it's considered tagging no matter how beautiful. If the space has been approved for graffiti art - is it as exciting to paint it? That's a question for the artists....

Mark Forsyth on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-11T20:45:32Z

True, but it makes sense in that many people group the two together. I am a fan of grafiti art. I hate the tags that go on every new sign that pops up in my neighborhood.

iadam on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-11T20:16:50Z

how can you include tagging and graffiti art in the same story, thats like saying a boat and a house are the same because they are made out of wood?

William Burg on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-11T20:11:52Z

When someone tags the side of my house, it isn't Clear Channel or CBS who has to paint over it, I do. So I tend to be a bit skeptical about the argument that scrawling tags on people's houses is actually a subversive way to bring down the Man. Some don't like to see graffiti in the mountains when they're hiking or fishing, because to them the mountains are beautiful and important and should be protected from vandalism. I'm a city guy, I do my hiking in Midtown for the most part, and I think the beauty of Sacramento's historic homes, its old industrial buildings, and even its trees (lots of taggers down here tag trees) shouldn't be subjected to the scrawls of taggers and vandals.

Dale Kooyman on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-11T20:05:29Z

I respect the skills of various graffiti artists. Some of their works I admire; some I don't. When I view works of art in an art museum, I respect the skill of those artists too. Some of their works I admire; some I don't. So what is lost in this whole graffiti argument is whether nature or other’s property, public spaces and craftsmanship should be respected. That argument holds whether we are referring to graffiti locally or worldwide. Graffiti artists think that their work should be respected. I agree when done in the right place. There is a whole body of people out there who believe nature and private places should be respected too. Therein lies the conflict. BUT apparently graffiti artists and vandals feel that they have the right to disrespect nature and the artisans who created those places—forget the property owners for the moment. Examples include graffiti and tags on tree trunks which disrespects nature; on wooden, brick or stone buildings disrespects the construction workers, and nature’s woods, stones and materials from which the bricks were made AND the skills of the carpenters, stone masons and the bricklayers. It is that simple. I am one of the other body of folks who ask, “By what line of reasoning does a graffiti artist or tagger feel that they have the right to disrespect nature and artisans’ works?” The only answer I can come up with is—skilled as they may be-- they don’t have the right. So then are they acting out of self-centered selfish interests? As to side issues, in all art forms, the "power and meaning" is subjective. I might find one display site both powerful and meaningful and someone else may not. The young man on U-tube used “powerful” as he viewed some graffiti. I admired the skill but I didn’t find it powerful. So that does not give either of us the right to tell others what we find "powerful and meaningful" should be displayed on a site we choose whether that be on private property or in public places. 54cv183's comments are particularly enlightening as to attitude and logic. He says where he doesn't like seeing it. I agree. It may be his opinion that graffiti is “urban” but the fact is that graffiti is rural too and has been around in the countryside for decades, if not centuries. Did it occur to him and other graffiti defenders that there is a large segment of society that doesn't like seeing graffiti on private property or public places in both urban and rural areas—just as he does not like it when he’s fishing? And just like artists whose work hangs in art museums, graffiti artists or taggers have no right to impose the display of their work on private property or in public places. Many private properties also display works of art they like in their lobbies or on exterior sites. Some people like them and some don’t. But that display choice is up to the owner—corporate or individual. “Lights” on property “promoting consumption” may be seen by the public BUT the property is still private and is there by choice. Artisans created those lights too. (Go the Neon Museum in L.A.) 54cv183 is partially right that “art in public would be approved by the government.” He is wrong when he implies that government approval is censorship. Governments were formed to maintain some kind of order as opposed to anarchy. We the people have delegated to government the task of overseeing the condition and maintenance of public spaces. If we don’t like that then join with others to change it. This country does allow dissent, difficult as it may be to organize and obtain those changes, history shows that it can be done. If you are in the majority, you win; if you are in the minority, you lose.

savemidtown on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-11T18:50:08Z

those scribbles are property damage and make homeowners and business owners spend many hours cleaning up - & yes even the dumpster is private property - taking time away from more useful activites & money in the form of staff to clean up so the overhead to maintain property and clean this stuff up makes everyones costs go up. On the Flip side I'm sure places that sell paint and cleaning supplies are thrilled. I live in the city and like the other commentor who doesn't like to see it in the places they choose to escape to - i don't care to see it where i choose to escape to - my porch. Putting this stuff on a public canvas like those provided by the city in Venice Beach and elsewhere are fine but to place this on someone elses home or business is just really not cool - lame in fact.

Paul Cox on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-11T18:05:17Z

Interesting, what are your thoughts on the tagging that involves the quick scribbles with a pen or with a quick spray from a spray can?

Zemog Gomez on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-11T16:52:07Z

Showing graffiti style art in a venue is not graffiti, it's a form of bowing down to the forces of corporate and government rules. Graffiti is illegal, but so is smoking pot - that doesn't make it inherently bad. That's what makes it high energy. A city with no graffiti is no city at all. It would be all concrete and corporate and government - boring. The only 'art' in public would be that approved (censored) by the government. The argument goes like this - public space belongs to the public. But only the rich can buy it (Clear Channel, CBS, etc...) Look at SF, NY or Tokyo - the cities are littered with lights promoting consumption. Does graffiti promote consumption? Personally, I like to see good graffiti in the city in weird places. No, I don't like to see it up in the mountains when I'm fishing, and really never have. It's an urban form of art and it's here to stay - I just can't get into it in a controlled environment. It's like fishing in at the pond at William Land Park - it looses the power and meaning of doing real graffiti, that's my two cents, or three... The movie, "Bomb It" says it all - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi1mo3ngfUs&feature=related" Another great clip - longer (5:42') from Bomb It - historical perspective with roots in Zoots and Chicanos from Olvera street in the 1920's (I remember going there as a boy with my family, way better than the state fair, and no rides.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D-GGwKDj6Q&feature=related

Terry Loff on "Graffiti in Midtown, is it Art?"

2009-04-11T15:52:12Z

Your article was insightful. I would like to see these masterpieces you are talking about.