At that time Clear Channel won a $500 thousand dollar judgment plus another $500,000 in court costs in this legal action against the City (the case was dismissed on appeal and is now back in Circuit Court so the money has not yet been paid).

Clear Channel did not gain any less regulation from the City or win any special treatment through this decision.

However, following this 1998 court decision- for the first time- murals were included under the City sign code and were now to be regulated as “painted wall signs”. An exception was made for grandfathered murals and signs (those painted before the 1998 decision) and those under 200 sq. ft. in size.

No such thing as art

There was now no distinction between “art” and commercial “signage”.

With the new ruling, in order to paint a mural larger than 200 sq. ft. (really, an inconsequential size for an outdoor mural)- an artist, or community organization (or sign company) had to seek a waiver of the sign code, called an “adjustment”. With a fee of $1400 simply to apply for this waiver (and no reimbursement if your project was not approved), community murals were effectively eliminated. Grassroots groups, youth programs, and individual artists were unable to raise the needed money, or to risk losing the application fee if the adjustment was denied. [The City has defended the high cost of the adjustment review, saying that this figure represents an “average” of the amount needed to process an application.]

Years of legal action

Six years of legal action and legislation between Clear Channel and The City of Portland followed, including a moratorium on any painted expression on outside walls.

Mayor Vera Katz responded to pressure from mural artists and others and created a roundtable meeting of stakeholders to find a solution. The Mayor- an opponent of billboard blight- hoped to create that constitutional “third way”, with help from the City attorneys office.

In 2003, Mayor Katz’ proposed solution- a kind of maneuver around the restrictive sign code and adjustment process- was made public. The reasoning was that if the City were to “own” the artwork (as they do with public art and sculpture created through the Percent for Art program) they would be patrons of the City’s Public Art Collection, rather than regulators of the City’s sign code.

This public art exemption would be administered by Portland’s Regional Arts and Culture Council (a semi-independent non-profit organization that was once a City bureau).

In December 2004, the proposed Public Art Murals Program passed the five member Portland City Council with a 4-1 vote.

The single opposing voice was City Council member Randy Leonard. He’d offered Clear Channel a stipulated agreement (or contract) the year before, a plan that would have effectively increased CC’s advertising space by allowing Tri-vision signs for the first time (among other problems). Leonard’s 2003 attempt at a sweetheart deal for CC was squelched by the mayor and by loud objections from mural artists.

The Public Art Murals Program

The details of the new Public Art Mural Program were drafted with (nominal) help from mural artists (most of whom were taking a “wait and see” posture).

Under the plan, the arts council’s existing Public Art Advisory Committee would now approve and grant funds to mural projects on a monthly basis. $50,000 in seed money (for FY 2005, and again for 2006) was allocated by the City, and by March 2005, the program was ready to accept applications.

As the City was nervous (understandably, with a million dollar payment to CC unsettled) about outdoor advertising’s response, applicants could come either from the arts community or from the commercial sector, as long as the project met certain criteria- including that the murals/signs must be, original & unique, and allowed to stay in place for over 5 years (see www.racc.org for more on program details).

One clause troublesome to artists is the requirement that building owners sign an “easement” granting ownership of the artwork (just the paint, not the wall) to the City. And, exactly as predicted, this issue was a roadblock for at least two mural projects in summer 2005. Both were unable to accept any funding from RACC without a signed easement. One project was halted outright, the other delayed. (It is impossible to tell how many others never even got off the ground due to this provision).

Portland’s mural program, unlike private and publicly-sponsored community mural programs in Philadelphia (www.muralarts.org) or Venice, CA (www.sparcmurals.org), is purely a response to Clear Channel’s litigation- providing a way for murals to be “allowed” once again, and the hope (now dashed) to skirt future legal challenges.

Many are troubled, though, by the loss of the once free and open arrangements between an artist and wall owner to paint a mural. With RACC’s jury process now inserted into the equation, getting a mural approved is more complicated, time-consuming and is no longer a simple matter of an agreement between two parties.

In this regard, Clear Channel has already been successful in eroding a portion of our right to artistic expression in Portland. This loss of free speech has gone unnoticed by many, who have heralded the mural program as the solution to the lack of murals.

In their public testimony before City Council (in Dec. 2004), one Clear Channel lobbyist had called the proposed mural program a “jihad” against the sign companies.

By spring 2005, before mural painting season had even begun, and in meetings held behind closed doors, Clear Channel had moved to stop the Portland mural program.

CC claims that the City continues to “unconstitutionally favor art over other types of painted wall signs”. On June 6, 2005, Clear Channel was in court before Judge Michael Marcus requesting that all pertinent evidence- everything since the original 1998 decision- should be examined in court (including projects completed under the new mural program and case law involving mural artist Joe Cotter). The City of Portland vehemently objected but was overruled from the bench.

Then, in August, Marcus set a trail date for March 2006.

In the seven years that this case has been unfolding, artists have had no real legal representation, and there has been little substantive communication from the City, even though the arts community is clearly and directly affected.

Muralist Joe Cotter (acting pro se, but with some advice from an ACLU attorney) would like to intervene in this case, if only to be privy to communications between CC and The City of Portland. Joe has the legal standing to do so and enthusiastic support from the mural arts community.

Clear Channel has been marshalling “evidence” all summer. The company sent its attorneys to (stealthily) sit in on mural artist’s presentations to the Public Art Advisory Committee (the RACC committee charged with deciding whether to approve and fund a mural project) in June, and CC has subpoenaed meeting notes from RACC’s Public Art program staff.

Throughout fall 2005, a new flurry of legal paperwork has been filed, as Clear Channel submits its objections to having artist representation in the proceedings (see docs: AK Media Group, dba Clear Channel Outdoor vs City of Portland Case no. 9801-00125)*.

Can Clear Channel stop the Public Art Murals Program?

At this time, it is uncertain whether CC will win an injunction to bring a halt to the Public Art Murals Program, but it likely that this case will continue to drag on for several more years in appeal.

We are very ready, however, to pass judgment on CC in the “court of public opinion”.

Clear Channel has been at the heart of other controversies around the country, but that they would attack public art in this manner is unique to Portland.

We (artists and activists) hope to highlight CC’s actions in our community (and other Portland-area municipalities), but most importantly, to use this local issue as a way to educate more people about CC’s domination of public space and public discourse.

The growing concern over public space: censorship?

Clear Channel has declined anti-corporate billboards (for a Staten Island Wal-Mart), anti-war/pro-peace billboards intended for Times Square (designed by Billboard Project of Berkeley, CA for the 2004 Republican Convention) and has passed on other messages deemed “inappropriate” by their CEO.

With the means (over 1200 radio stations, numerous TV stations) to shape what we see, hear and know, there is no corner too small for Clear Channel and their advertiser’s messages.

And, despite claims of declining business, Clear Channel’s Outdoor Division is growing. They own taxi tops, billboards (more than 820,000 world wide), airport advertising, and signage in shopping malls (including a giant backlit American flag in one New Jersey mall).

Clear Channel billboards and signs now appear in Ireland, Italy, Sweden, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, and Peru, to name only a few countries.

With new technologies (iPods, subscription radio, the Internet) beginning to encroach on the corporate reach to wide audiences, billboards remain one of the few types of advertising that people simply cannot escape- a fact that CC triumphantly crows about to potential clients.

Some questions

Why is Clear Channel Outdoor objecting so strenuously to murals and public art in Portland, Oregon? What do they stand to gain?

Why would Clear Channel work this hard to stop murals from being painted in our urban neighborhoods?

And, will the community murals planned for next summer (including new works by noted muralist Isaka Shamsud-Din, newcomer Robin Corbo and many others) get completed?

Will Clear Channel be successful in stopping murals in our town?

Don’t let it happen! The time is right for us to say to Clear Channel: “Hands Off Our Murals”. Please join us.

Joe Cotter, muralist

Co-founder & member Artback Artists Cooperative Estacada, Oregon

e-mail: chameleons_garden@yahoo.com

Joanne Oleksiak

Coordinator, Portland Mural Defense

PO Box 33098

Portland, OR 97292-3098

e-mail: portlandmuraldefense@yahoo.com

* A reference copy of the legal documents for this case is available at The Portland Alliance newspaper office. 2807 SE Stark St. Portland, OR 97214. Call 503/239-4991 for hours.