Sad to see the mural come down? Consider a donation to ROCC.
Last fall a Black Lives Matter mural went up on a homeowner’s fence in West St. Paul. Now it’s coming down because it violates city ordinance. The homeowner plans to paint over the mural this week.
“We feel that it’s our responsibility to lend voice and further legitimacy to our Black and brown brothers and sister who are literally being murdered in broad daylight, in the middle of the street, in the center of the busiest cities, across America,” the homeowner, Ryan Weyandt, said last fall.
Originally the fence also promoted a political candidate, Kimetha “KaeJae” Johnson who ran unsuccessfully for mayor in the last election, but that portion of the mural was removed after the election according to state law.
Similarly controversial signs that opposed abortion also appeared in West St. Paul last fall and were also removed for violating city ordinances.
What the Law Says
Removal of the mural has nothing to do with the content. The ordinance—two of them, actually—are pretty clear on the subject:
The fence ordinance:
“Fences can contain no words or pictures and must be of uniform color.”
West St. Paul City Ordinance 153.381
The sign ordinance:
Under prohibited signs: “Signs painted, attached or in any other manner affixed to fences.”
West St. Paul City Ordinance 153.434
For a sense of comparison, South St. Paul, Mendota Heights, and Inver Grove Heights all have similar language prohibiting signs on fences. None had the no pictures and uniform color restrictions for fences.
Why Did It Take So Long?
It became clear the mural violated city ordinance last year, though city staff gave the homeowner until spring—April 15 specifically—because repainting the fence would be too difficult in cold weather. We shared back in January that the mural would be coming down.
Why was it allowed in the first place? State law about political signs during an election trumps city code, so West St. Paul couldn’t enforce the ordinances during the election. Once the election was over, enforcement began again.
City Council Debate
West St. Paul’s City Council discussed the sign ordinance in January but failed to come to any consensus on what to do.
“You can’t read sign to find out if it’s legal,” said City Attorney Kori Land. “You regulate time, place, and manner, not content.”
Once the city makes decisions about the content of a sign or mural, they run into first amendment censorship issues.
“I don’t want to be the arbiter of what is acceptable and unacceptable art,” said Council Member John Justen. “The problem is the only way not to be the arbiter of what is or isn’t is to allow it all or to allow none. We can’t take a middle position because it won’t legally work.”
So the existing ordinance has taken the route of banning all art. The City Council could change that—the Twin Cities are full of murals, there are dozens on the West Side alone—but at the recent meeting there wasn’t clear direction on how to do that without throwing open the doors to what some would consider unacceptable messages.
April 9, 2021 Update: Complaint-Driven Enforcement
Fox 9 and the Star Tribune have now covered the story, and there’s this interesting addition:
City spokesman Dan Nowicki said the code enforcement team has received more than 20 complaints about the mural since September. He said it’s impossible to tell how many different people made those complaints because some were anonymous.
Star Tribune
This aspect of the story hasn’t been discussed much: Enforcement is mostly driven by complaint. I talked to city staff today who said it was probably 80% or more complaint driven. That helps explain why enforcement is so inconsistent. Weyandt has said he had signs on his fence in previous years and was never asked to take it down. That’s because no one complained.
The problem with complaint-based enforcement is potentially controversial messages like this one get enforcement while others are completely ignored. It also means code is inconsistently enforced, making the city look like it’s choosing sides. Ultimately, the approach can empower bullies who can snitch on their targets as a form of harassment.
The opposite approach is to do proactive enforcement where the entire city is swept for violations. West St. Paul used to take that approach in the mid-2000s, and the result is predictably unpopular.
Part of the City Council discussion back in January centered on what would be easiest to enforce. The Council members didn’t want to create a burden on city staff. As the city looks for a way forward, proactive and complaint-based enforcement have their drawbacks. One possible solution? Less restrictive ordinances require less enforcement.
April 11, 2021 Update: More News Coverage
More media coverage of the mural saga from WCCO and Bring Me the News, which mostly rely on other reporting. But the New York Times also weighs in (with a story that includes a link to our interview with Johnson from last summer). For those keeping track, this is the second time this year West St. Paul has made the New York Times. The first was coverage of Brood, a new novel released in March by West St. Paul resident Jackie Polzin.
April 12, 2021 Update: City Council Response
While tonight’s regular meeting was cut short due to an emergency declaration and curfew, which precluded any public comments, the work session included a heated debate about the mural. Ultimately, five council members supported postponing the fines until the next meeting when there would be more time to consider the issue.
April 19, 2021 Update: Blue Lives Response & International
Late last week this story escalated as a former West St. Paul mayor put up a Blue Lives Matter mural.
Also, The Guardian ran an article about the mural controversy today, making this an international story.
April 27, 2021 Update: No Ordinance Change, Take It Down
After much public input, the City Council decided last night not to make any changes to the ordinance and voted unanimously to give Weyandt one more week to remove the mural and then reinstate fines.
“Many neighbors supported protecting the fence,” Council Member Robyn Gulley said, but doing so would require allowing any speech. “Do you want that? The answer was a resounding no. By and large, even the folks who really, really, really wanted to find a way preserve the fence, did not want us to do away with the sign and fence ordinance.”
May 3, 2021 Update: Painted Black
April 8, 2021 Update: My Opinion: All or Nothing Is a Boogeyman, Bring on Public Art
Here’s my take: I love public art.
I used to run a website where I drove around the Twin Cities cataloging and mapping public murals and sculptures. There are literally hundreds of amazing works of art throughout the Twin Cities that people can encounter on a daily basis. I also led the effort to bring art to our formerly empty art park.
I’m all for public art.
Right now, I think the city is fairly enforcing the ordinance as written. Many people love this mural (I do), but enforcement isn’t about the content of the mural. You can’t put any mural on a fence in West St. Paul, whether it’s advocating for racial justice or just a series of alternating colors.
So let’s change the ordinance.
The biggest argument against changing the ordinance is that it’s an all or nothing equation. If you allow any “art” on a fence, you have to allow all “art” on a fence.
But all or nothing is a boogeyman. It’s a scare tactic intended to assume the absolute worst outcome happens. If you allow all art, then you’re willing to have all kinds of hate messages—think racist symbols, swastikas, etc. If you allow all art, then you could have something really ugly.
But that’s not reality:
- Right now, West St. Paul city ordinance allows one sign per yard, with no restriction on message. How many hate-filled yard signs do we have? I’ve never seen any.
- As I said before, there are hundreds of murals across the Twin Cities in other municipalities. None of them seem to have a problem being overwhelmed with negative messages or “ugly” art.
- In 2012, a sitting West St. Paul City Council member flew the Confederate flag. There was nothing the city sign ordinance could say about it. He eventually removed the flag due to public pressure.
The law can’t decide what’s ugly or not and the law can’t decide what’s good or bad. So let people decide. Give people the freedom to express themselves.
Will we have signs or murals we may personally disagree with? Sure. We already do with yard signs. Will we get a mural some people think is ugly? Sure, and some people will think it’s amazing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Rather than focus on how changing the ordinance could go wrong and bring messages that give West St. Paul a bad name or create ugly works of art that somehow drive down property values (because neither of those things are happening in the rest of the Twin Cities), let’s focus on the uplifting and healing power of art.
By changing this ordinance, we could welcome a wave of creativity and beauty.
It’s not an easy change. There are lots of nuances and complications to city code. Rules for residences and businesses are different. If we allow art on fences, what about the side of a house or a garage door? We could also include limitations to ensure a mural is kept up and peeling paint doesn’t become the norm. There are likely other factors and considerations to debate. And yes, when someone puts up a mural we don’t like, they’re free to do so (and we’re free to say we don’t like it and even protest, which has happened in the past).
So instead of getting up in arms that the city is being unfair (they’re not), let’s get up in arms that we have an ordinance that limits free expression and change it. Let’s embrace public art and all the challenges that come with it and not give in to the scare tactics.
We rely on your support to dig into local stories and answer questions.
NOT COOL!!!
Paint it move. You agreed to the guidelines when you moved in
Plus, it’s looks like blight. Your neighbors don’t deserve this.
We have a Black Lives Matter sign in our front yard and I support the sentiment on the fence 100%. Nevertheless, I agree with the city ordinance. While I love seeing public expressions of ideas I agree with I would HATE to have to live next door to a fence in support of the KKK. If you allow one, you have to accept the other. Keep the ordinance.
Maureen: The challenge is that in some ways we already allow this. Just as you have a Black Lives Matter yard sign, your neighbor could put up a KKK sign in their yard. Perfectly legal. But it hasn’t happened. So why would it happen if we up the stakes to a fence instead of a yard sign? Or to put it another way, right now someone can put up a KKK yard sign next door to you. Why are we allowing that to happen?
The answer I think in both cases is social pressure. It’s admittedly not a perfect answer, but that’s why there aren’t KKK yard signs around town and it’s why I think there wouldn’t be KKK murals if we changed the ordinance.
No signs.
This article seems rather short sided and Pollyannic to me. These codes aren’t in place to oppress art, free speech or to dominate the masses. It has little to do with hate messages. There are always people who want to push the boundaries of good taste, do things just to get a reaction or out of spite. If my neighbor painted “F- Nazis” on their fence, even if I agree with the sentiment, I wouldn’t want to live next to it. The city can’t be the arbiter of what is or isnt art, they would waste a lot of resources on lawsuits. A blanket code is the obvious solution, unfortunately that includes positive messages. As the writer points there are many murals on the west side, so art isnt being restricted, but crass or obscene words and images are.
Let’s be clear: There are murals on the West Side because St. Paul doesn’t have the same ordinances as West St. Paul. St. Paul allows “all,” while West St. Paul allows “none.”
I agree, keep the ordinance…
Kevin – West St. Paul city ordinance allows one sign per yard, with no restriction on message. Do you happen to know if there is a size restriction to this rule? What’s to stop someone from making a sign that is almost as big as a fence and putting that in their yard?
Oh yes, there absolutely is a size rule. I believe it’s no more than six square feet (so three feet by two feet). The City Council did discuss increasing the size at a recent meeting, but there wasn’t much support. There are also plenty of other limitations, so if people want to play ‘what if,’ it’s probably covered in the ordinance.
I appreciate the owners’ creativity and agree with their activist goals but I think they need to think harder about how they can turn the attention they are getting into something that doesn’t violate city code, puts hard working civil servants in an awkward position, and unites neighbors rather than divide them.
For example, rather than paint the fence over, or putting it into a landfill, perhaps the owners could auction off boards or sections to raise money for the Southern Poverty Law Center or other similar civil rights organizations. I’d participate in something like that.
On a more practical note, we have that exact same style of batten board fence and it is a major hassle to stain or paint and painted fences typically don’t age well.