[Mark in Mount Airy]

I don't think we should over-react to one instance where some NIMBY or shakedown artist used the existence of a mural to try to stop development. The murals of Philadelphia are awesome, the program that produces them is terrific, and probably the last people in the City who would want to see their work used as a rationale against development would be them, because (as one poster accurately noted) if this rationale were to multiply it would be the end of their program. People already use the existence of scrub gardens in vacant lots to try to stop development -- that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop people from temporarily beautifying little tracts in advance of development. NIMBYs are gonna NIMBY, and shakedown artists are gonna shake down. I'm a gay man who completely appreciates the recognition of our community by the mural, and at the same time I would have painted over it myself as soon as possible to remove one more ridiculous objection to development. Just repaint the mural elsewhere. It's not like it's a Violet Oakley.