I vacillate between the two. I think we both agree they are pretty darned important and basic.
The idea that some goofy council and mayor can pass a law saying that someone, if they are a “specially recognized artistic force” can apply their art to your property and you don’t have a right to remove it is absolutely preposterous.
Ignoring the obvious rights issues, art is subjective. What one man likes, another loathes. e.g. I’m not into Punk.
The quality or lack thereof is irrelevant here. The act of putting something on a building in which you have no ownership interest nor permission to do so be it a sign or graffiti or a copy of a Rembrandt ranges from vandalism to destruction of property. Such a law prohibiting owner removal of graffiti should constitute a taking without just compensation. Hopefully, the aggrieved property owner will take this to the highest Court in the land which should rule with enough force to kick the council, mayor and the rest of the turds supporting the law back to the ideological shit holes where they were initially crapped out into the atmosphere.