By Lindsay Toler
By Lindsay Toler
By Mitch Ryals
By Danny Wicentowski
By Lindsay Toler
By Lindsay Toler
By Danny Wicentowski
By Anne Valente
After sunset on a humid evening in July, Ruben Alejandre stands in the shadows of his parking lot at 3124 Cherokee Street, unsure.
Earlier this summer he allowed several graffiti artists to create a mural on the side of his music venue and eatery, El Leñador. Yet he didn't expect this result: an explosive collage of spray-painted signatures. Opinion on the street is divided: Is it high art or heinous?
"It doesn't look too bad," contends Alejandre, comparing it to the Latin Kings gang scrawlings he'd seen growing up in Chicago. "It's colorful. It's bright. But I don't know if it will work in St. Louis."
A few paces away, his bar manager, Johnny "Vegas" Moynihan, is more blunt.
"We were told it would be a scenic mural," he says, in between drags of a cigarette. "But instead it looks like the side of a railroad car."
City hall seems to agree with Moynihan's assessment.
On July 26 an agent of the excise division hand-delivered a letter to Alejandre that cited him for failure to abide by several conditions he'd agreed to when he set up shop in Craig Schmid's 20th Ward back in 2006.
The city faulted Alejandre for failing to install proper fencing and security outside his establishment and for operating past the agreed upon 11 p.m. weeknight curfew. Then, buried in the letter, another citation caught Alejandre off-guard: El Leñador's vivid mural was found to be in violation of a new sign code the board of aldermen quietly passed this summer that has granted the city more legal cover than ever to wipe out publicly visible works of art.
While Alejandre doesn't quite adore the colors that the graffiti artists swirled onto the side of his building, he positively bristles at the city's attempt to regulate them.
"This is art," he says of his mural. "Legally, the city cannot take this down."
Michael Bindas scoffs when he hears of St. Louis' new sign regulations. A Seattle-based attorney with the Libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice, Bindas has spent the past five years representing activist Jim Roos in his ongoing fight to keep his massive "End Eminent Domain Abuse" mural on a building near the intersection of Interstate 44 and Interstate 55.
Last July the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that city's sign code was "impermissibly content-based." In layman's terms, it sought to control things such as Roos' painting but would leave alone a painting of equal size if it were, say, a flower. Thus it favored one kind of speech over another, which the judge's felt violated the First Amendment.
Now that the Supreme Court has declined to hear the city's appeal, it sits on the desk of District Court Judge Henry Autrey in St. Louis. He must decide whether the whole sign code must fall or whether the exemptions can be surgically removed.
But the city has not waited around for his advice. On July 18, without any fanfare, the board of aldermen revised the sign code by deleting the longstanding exemptions for crests, flags and artwork. This change removed the shield that murals enjoyed under the old law.
"Unfortunately, the city just made it worse for everyone by doing this of its own accord," says Bindas. "Speech is not the problem. Government regulation of speech is the problem."
Associate city counselor Matt Moak confirms that the sign code is now "majorly broad." But he assures the RFT that it's no cause for alarm.
"We don't want to be the art police," he says. "They've forced us into an all-or- nothing situation. We're revising our sign code so that it looks like we're going to be more aggressive, but actually, there are items we still don't want to regulate."
Yet Moak concedes it's a thorny task.
"If you try to draw a distinction — 'This is art, and that is not; this is graffiti, and that is not' — you run into problems," Moak says. "Legally, it's troublesome. It almost falls on the neighborhood to flesh some of this out."
Cherokee Street is split down the middle, with Ken Ortmann's 9th Ward on the north side and Craig Schmid's 20th Ward to the south.
Schmid did not respond to interview requests from Riverfront Times, but Ortmann did.
"I think every situation is different," Ortmann says of the new law. "It depends on what you call a sign. A sign to me is something that's advertising a product or a business." But art, he says, is different.
"My understanding is, if it's art, you don't need a permit. Though I'd like to change that, so that we know what's where."
Sign code aside, any city leader or cranky neighbor has another avenue to remove art on private property: They can label it "graffiti."
The paint was scarcely dry on El Leñador's east wall when, on July 2, two complaints came into the city's Citizens' Service Bureau. Both referred to the work as graffiti, which by definition, must be removed.
Under a 2005 anti-graffiti ordinance, crafted to battle gang tagging, a single complaint is all it takes for Brightside St. Louis, the city's public-private cleanup crew to swing into action. The agency (known to many as "Operation Brightside") followed up with a notice to Alejandre informing him of its intent to remove the mural within five business days. Meanwhile, a debate broke out online over whether it even qualified as art.
As someone who lives and works on Cherokee, I'm so frustrated by the petty politics holding back business and development in an area that needs these things so badly. There is a strong community of pioneering people who are willing to risk much, including their safety, to make this neighborhood a strong and vibrant community. El Lenador was one of the places anchoring the west end of the street. Now, however, they're barely allowed to conduct the business that sustains their existence in the community. When they're not open, the block is dead.
I think that the controversy surrounding the mural proves that it's art. Art makes people think, disagree, argue and step outside the normal... signs don't. Art can't be regulated just because it isn't understood by each individual in the community or else we'll just end up with ... what... a Thomas Kincaid mural?
Reminds of when I had a chance to chat many many years ago with Caspar, one of the primary organizers behind the Paint Louis festivals in '98-'00 that put graffiti-inspired murals on the floodwall south of the Arch. He recounted similar troubles, and far far more hassle by Harmon's administration at the time. The event encouraged muralists to travel to St. Louis from around the country, only for them to be singled out and hassled by police for 'suspicion of intent to commit vandalism.' Caspar gave this as his primary reason for leaving St. Louis for Seattle.
My prediction is that until the tags come down, Alejandre is going to find out that under the City of St. Louis system of government, your alderman has the power to destroy your business at will. It is almost certainly impossible for any business to comply with every single regulation. Depending on what business you're in, some of them may even contradict each other; the rest cannot be met and still make a profit of any kind. Every business in the city exists at the constant mercy of the nearest elected official -- and that is exactly how St. Louis voters like it.
Apparently LA is experiencing the same issue as reported by your sister paper. http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/08/man_one_vyal_la_mural_buffed_by_city.php?ref=trending The wall ended up looking worse when the art was covered by a bad paint job....
The building owner isn't pleased with the way the "mural" turned out, but he shouldn't be fined for it. If the alderman want something to do, why not try cleaning up the neighborhood that surrounds Cherokee? The amount of garbage and neglect that I see on a daily basis is pathetic. Leave alone the legit business owners that are trying to improve our neighborhood and try cracking down on the ghetto rats that are making it trashy. There are so many artists in this neighborhood that are trying to improve things, why not see the good that they are trying to do? And now I will step down from my soap box.
I can't believe that the city is trying to regulate a mural. Don't hate what you don't understand politico's.
I have been in St Louis for the past 3 years. First moved to SOCO (worst decision ever) I thought STL was STL. Until I visited Benton Park/Cherokee St. I now live in Benton park a couple blocks off of Cherokee St. It is vibrant, somewhat diverse, always fun and safer than people think. It appeals to most artists, it lends itself to free thinkers. It is still growing a little bit of graffiti may be better than staggering drunks, wouldn't you agree?
The Lenador building is one of the buildings in STL that i have come to enjoy every time I ride my bicycle past it. It reminds me of my old neighborhood, PILSEN in Chicago. Graffiti kept me out of of trouble growing up and would rather see expressions in explosive colors, than gang activity or drive by shootings. I would rather be assaulted by the loud voice of an artist's work than hear the words of an alderman/woman that has lost some connection to the growing population of the community he/she serves.
Cherokee Latin/Art district is not as strange as stated in the article, it just may be strange to a generation growing out of touch with the changing times. This neighborhood is one of the few where I feel perfectly comfortable being myself, a Mexican American, artist, supporter of the arts, city employee, urban cyclist, and a dreamer full of ambition.
The work on the Lenador may be more helpful than one would think. It helped me a long time ago.