New Garland business may have to cover up Virgin of Guadalupe mural — weeks after it was painted -- Management at Meadowcreek Village shopping center says it will have to be removed.

[-]

HumanNigiri@reddit

[-]

texmexspex@reddit

The people who sell you a house in the Get Out neighborhood.

[-]

JohnPaulDavyJones@reddit

I’m boggled that they managed to assemble an entire executive leadership group that’s comprised of the whitest people I’ve ever seen in my life.

Usually there’s at least some ethnic variety amongst the leadership at a given company, but not them. They don’t even have variety amongst the folks’ hair colors. Thirteen people and there are four narrow hair options. Wild.

[-]

Mnudge@reddit

One of the whitest ones appears to have married someone who is vietnamese

I’m sure they are counting that. The person is also a female!!!!

[-]

Mnudge@reddit

Holy shit.

[-]

opinionsOnPears@reddit

Are those the owners or the property management?

[-]

Leader_Bud@reddit

Careful who you sign a lease with. And even more careful with the approvals to have a big ass mural painted on their building. Sucks, but pretty common.

[-]

FaBiOtHeGrEaTeSt@reddit

Looks like they wouldn’t ever step into the restaurant

[-]

TXWayne@reddit

Dang, that is so white I need sunglasses.....

[-]

sushisection@reddit

"landlords demand the cover-up of christian mural" would anger some folks

[-]

Fabulous_Hand2314@reddit

The contract says don't paint outside walls. Follow contract.
Would everyone feel the same if this was MAGA mural?
patronize or boycott any private business you want.

[-]

PrincessAngieB@reddit

Oh noooo can't have people adding character and culture to our shopping centers /s

This kind of shit is why people say Dallas has no culture and is boring, the minute we have something interesting or artistic people paint over it or tear it down smh

[-]

LostinIKEA512@reddit

But the average strip mall in Garland is sooo beautiful 😍❤️!

[-]

BillDuki@reddit

They completed the mural without managements approval. “She believed it had been approved”, although it obviously wasn’t. You can’t rent a property and make drastic changes without managements approval, especially the exterior of a strip mall.

[-]

No_Potato_8178@reddit

Found the pendejo

[-]

Dallas-ModTeam@reddit

Your comment has been removed because it is a violation of Rule #3: Uncivil Behavior

Violations of this rule may result in a ban. Please review the r/Dallas rules on the sidebar before commenting or posting.

Send a message the moderators if you have any questions. Thanks!

[-]

colonel_beefy@reddit

The mural is awesome but you gotta get approval before you paint on property that’s not yours. Seems like common sense.

[-]

JohnPaulDavyJones@reddit

Yeah, I’m kind of curious what that communication looked like. The tenants submitted a rendering and thought it had been approved, so it’s really all about whether they:

Got some form of communication back and misinterpreted it
Got no communication back and just went ahead with it
Got express approval and the landlords are now just playing snake

Perception’s kind of going to depend heavily on which one it is.

[-]

Ok-Aardvark-6742@reddit

Let’s include the full context of “she believed it had been approved”

Zamora told KERA she had submitted to management an AI rendering of what the mural would look like on the outside of the restaurant as part of plans for the space. She signed the lease to the suite in mid-February and had the restaurant's soft opening on May 5.

She believed it was approved because she submitted her plans, including the mural, before the work began and the management company didn’t raise any concerns when they offered her the lease. Any reasonable person would believe their plans were approved if no objections were raised when the lease was offered.

[-]

9bikes@reddit

>she submitted her plans, including the mural...management company didn’t raise any concerns when they offered her the lease.

That changes the picture entirely. It sounds like they induced her to sign the lease, by leading her to believe she was allowed to have it.

[-]

Ok-Aardvark-6742@reddit

I don’t think anything nefarious is going on. It seems like an honest miss on the management company’s part. The right thing to do would be to allow them to keep the mural-we need more public artwork around, but if they’re so dead against it they should offer to reimburse the business for what they spent to have it done.

[-]

captainn_chunk@reddit

drastic changes

Stop

[-]

PrincessAngieB@reddit

Ok but the argument that this is why Dallas is boring still stands. Why does management have an issue with art being put up outside a business? If their issue is with leaving it generic for the next tenant, then paint it over when they leave. Having endless strip malls with no character whatsoever sucks ass

[-]

EvadTB@reddit

The drastic change in question is a harmless mural that adds something resembling character to an otherwise generic shopping center. Management certainly has the legal standing to remove it, but that doesn't make it the right or smart thing to do.

[-]

TexasReallyDoesSuck@reddit

this is garland not dallas

[-]

bigyittiezz@reddit

Literally this! I went to LA recently and was astounded at how much culture and art is around every corner. Dallasites like to pretend they’re bougie so it’s beige white walls everywhere.

[-]

stoic_spaghetti@reddit

Yeah exactly this, the only time I ever see fast action or response is when the city or landlords are fighting to remove something—whether it's art, or a community event, or even some seating and dining in a parking lot. Like they despise the thought of people doing anything other than driving somewhere or being at home or work.

[-]

captainn_chunk@reddit

That’s literally the future the top 1% is trying to make happen.

[-]

stoic_spaghetti@reddit

The future they're trying to make happen is that your home IS your work, and your employer owns your home, and if you're not sleeping, then you're fucking to make more employees.

[-]

Mnudge@reddit

Dumb business decision. This is probably the only thing that makes their property stand out in a sea of commercial storefronts

[-]

AffectionateKey7126@reddit

You can't just let things like this stay on your walls unless there is a very clear signed agreement between the owners and the artist. Otherwise, you end up like 5points who had to pay $7 million.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/nov/09/new-york-graffiti-artist-win-lawsuit-5-pointz

[-]

Bardfinn@reddit

That really does make a lot of sense. Potentially this artwork could be protected under that law.

[-]

justplainndaveCGN@reddit

It’s a handmade mural. It’s one of a kind.

[-]

justplainndaveCGN@reddit

Why???

It’s a beautiful mural. Is there a reason aside from “religion bad”?

[-]

Virtual_Mechanic2936@reddit

I don't have a dog in the hunt, but.... Garland shouldn't be throwing stones as far as "grafitti". They've covered the downdown city in it. If they make this place paint over theirs, they need to do the same. They even paintted some city dumpsters.

[-]

Arrasor@reddit

It's not Garland. This is in a private shopping center. The owner of the shopping center is saying no, not city of Garland. They have full rights to decide this. The shop "believed" it was approved, but turned out it's not.

[-]

JohnPaulDavyJones@reddit

They submitted a rendering as part of their application, and management didn’t raise any flags.

That’s implicit approval; the onus is on the counterparty to do their diligence before offering the lease.

[-]

ScottOwenJones@reddit

That doesn’t mean the owner isn’t wrong. With all of the negative attention, you’d think the would change their mind.

[-]

Arrasor@reddit

I mean it suck, but wrong how? It's their private property they pretty much has the final say on what they allow it to be painted, unless the restaurant can point out where in the contract say they are allowed to do this at their discretion. But if there is such a clause in their lease, they wouldn't be asking people to use public opinion to pressure the landlord.

[-]

ChaosCron1@reddit

In this political landscape?

[-]

SubstantialPoet8468@reddit

They won’t

[-]

Bardfinn@reddit

It's the management of the shopping center that's saying it has to come down, not Garland City

[-]

9bikes@reddit

If you want to see the mural or give them some business, La Esquinita Panaderia y Taqueria is located at

809 W Centerville Rd suite A, Garland, TX 75041.

[-]

mijo_sq@reddit

Seemingly the tenants submitted drawings and plans for the space, and believed it to be approved. I don't know how long it took, but mangement would've noticed it.

[-]

No_Potato_8178@reddit

What the fuck