Toronto artist turns abandoned bike into sculpture, City threatens fine for "storing bike on public property"

Discuss

114 Responses to “Toronto artist turns abandoned bike into sculpture, City threatens fine for "storing bike on public property"”

  1. lknope says:

    I have no idea about Canada. I know some cities in the US allow you to voluntarily register your bike.

  2. holtt says:

    I think the real confusion lies in the fact that it’s an orange bike, not a pink bike.

    Once the primer was dry, I spray painted the bike neon orange. A colour Vanessa and I picked out together at Montana Colours, aka The Bomb Shelter.

    Clearly the city has an orange/pink bias.

  3. manicbassman says:

    unbelieveable… abandoned bikes in the UK get stripped of everything with just the frame remaining…

    • Charles H. says:

      It’s somewhat surprising it was only rusted. Most abandoned bikes I’ve seen in Toronto have had the wheels bent after a few weeks.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I think it’s amazing and whimsical. The city should encourage this. Good for tourism – good for Toronto

  5. Anonymous says:

    so is it pink or orange?

  6. Anonymous says:

    The city could’ve just taken it away without notice. At least you’ve got a chance to hold onto it if you feel such ownership over it.

  7. jwepurchase says:

    I mean, if I find a sidewalk-parked automobile and I go paint it pink, does it become my property?

    Don’t be silly! It’s not the paint that makes it yours; it’s the flowers.

  8. holtt says:

    ORANGE!

  9. emo hex says:

    Why can’t you just remove it every night and put it back in the morning?

  10. SamSam says:

    It’s not hard to understand the city’s point of view. Here’s the obvious thought process: it’s very hard to distinguish an abandoned bike from a non-abandoned bike, unless you’ve monitored it or a neighbor complains. Therefore, they don’t know whether it might not be moved tomorrow. A bike “sculpture,” however, is clearly not going to move, and so is clearly taking up space where it shouldn’t be.

    A bike rack is for bikes, not art. Once the bike is “art,” and the artist wants it to be there permanently, it’s taking up space that was designed for bikes.

    Now, of course, the abandoned bike was doing this too, but the city didn’t know it. If someone had complained about that bike, the same sign would have been put up.

    I like the bike a lot, but if an artist wants to take up a parking space for her art, she should ask the city. Would people be so appreciative of it if it were taking up a car space?

  11. Anonymous says:

    Contact your city councillor and local MPP or MLA to look into this. If anything, it would get them points for taking on a cause for the public good!

  12. Anonymous says:

    It’s hideous. I’m gonna side with the man on this one. Tear it out!!

  13. tlowden says:

    These are all great points and I like the discussion about the definition of art, the debate of the colour pink, and the use of Google streetview.

    Thank you for all the fact checking and opinions but I really brought the story to everyone’s attention because I think Toronto’s new graffiti law isn’t necessarily fair or just. I think this is a misappropriation of city funds and could be utilized more appropriately in dealing with more pressing Toronto issues

    Toronto now penalizes any store or property owner who has ‘graffiti’ on their property. Yet when this defacement is done on public property, i.e the sidewalk, or a government building, the cost is pushed to the artist/vandal. This doesn’t seem very fair or consistent, and I hope that voicing this opinion to the BoingBoing masses assists in getting the word to the right ears.

    As for the topic of whether it is or is not art, that is up to the viewer. Personally, I think it’s better than looking at a rusty bike, overstuffed trashcan, or poorly groomed and maintained traffic island.

  14. Anonymous says:

    We have things like this all over Portland. They’re called ghost bikes, after someone dies in a collision, there friends paint the bike white and decorate it with flowers and other ornaments. Then they bring it back and chain it to the spot where the friend got hit.

    Haven’t heard any Portland OR officials complaining.

  15. Anonymous says:

    reminds me of the piles of abandoned bicycles around the stations in Japan.

  16. Anonymous says:

    why not just move the bike to a different spot everyday and create a living art project, then 3 weeks from now paint it a different colour and keep people guessing.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Thats what happens when you have a right wing idiot like Rob Ford in charge (or any conservative for that matter, and might I remind you that you guys retweeted an advertisement for the PC Conservatives on the weekend for no apparent reason – if you support that then look forward to more of the close-mindedness you have above!

  18. joeposts says:

    Would people be so appreciative of it if it were taking up a car space?

    Like this?

    That’s 2011 streetview imagery

    I’m curious to know how you find out what year the image was taken (probably something obvious that I missed).

    Some streetviews are a couple years old – St. Clair West’s streetview features the LRT construction finished in 2009.

    • joeposts says:

      * St. Clair West’s streetview features the LRT construction finished in 2009, even though the (c) date is 2011.

    • Charles H. says:

      It’s probably a photo from late summer 2009. I’m basing this off of ads that can be seen as you move up and down Dundas.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Mysteriously the bike is also seen to both switch sides of the stand it’s locked to and direction it’s facing in the making of photos.

    Also that massive D lock they are using looks much much newer than the bike.

    • SamSam says:

      Amazing that one would be able to flip the bike 180º around the post! Almost impossible! And yet… not impossible at all.

      It’s clear, though, that the reason they flipped it around was because they had completely sprayed the side of the bike post with orange/pink spray paint, and thought it would look better against a non-spray-painted side. I’d hope if this project continues that they start covering the bike post when spraying.

  20. Art Carnage says:

    A little spot-welding to freeze the handlebars and pedals will render it a “non-bike” and no longer subject to the law about storing bikes.

  21. Anonymous says:

    ‎…..It’s a rather charming, really! o.o
    Have enough of those in a city and it could draw tourists and possibly raise land values and improve local business… o.o

  22. Anonymous says:

    Bolt a chalkboard to the bike, walk it a half block across the street to the corner of Dundas & McCaul and give it to Orange Alert coffee house to replace the sign they currently put out on the sidewalk posting daily specials.

    http://www.yyztech.ca/orange-alert

    If that resolves matters, you’ll have topic for another blog post on how the same bicycle on the sidewalk in the same block ceases to be a nuisance merely by virtue of advertising banana nut muffins.

  23. Anonymous says:

    So the city didn’t lift a finger while this bike rotted away but the second someone paid attention to it they wake up? I guess the lesson here is that if you want the city to pay attention to some trash just paint it bright pink.

  24. noah django says:

    Jesus Christ! When will the squares finally leave us alone!!!!!

  25. Anonymous says:

    Sometimes clever evasion is best. Angle grind the lock as suggested; take it in for a night or two. Repeat as needed. Rinse. Then leave out. If you doubt this strategy Ask Harper.

    • Anonymous says:

      That likely won’t work. The bylaw people don’t necessarily come by every day. They might not even come by on the 7th day, despite that being how many days they have to move the bike. All that matters for it to be removed is that the bylaw enforcement officer comes by on a day when the bike is still there after the notice has expired.

  26. Shmuel says:

    Google Street View does watermark its photos… those were taken in 2009. (You can read the watermark more clearly if you zoom in on the Chinese restaurant two doors down.)

  27. FutureMatt says:

    I like art, and I like bikes, and I went to OCAD, and I think that thing is taking up a bike parking space.

    That being said I love the Kensington Market garden car, which takes up a car parking space, so it’s tough for me to take a stance on this.

    A couple of years ago the city removed all the abandoned bikes locked up in Little Italy on College street and it was a good thing. They were rusty, chains were falling off, rims were bent, tires flat or missing, etc. This bike may have been rusty, but otherwise looks like it was in good condition.

    Perhaps it was questionable whether or not the bike had actually been abandonned until somebody converted it into an undeniably unused bicycle.

    • Anonymous says:

      The Kensington garden car is a bit more complicated than someone just parking a car on the street and turning it into an installation though, in that it’s permitted to exist unmolested by bylaw enforcement due to an agreement that was worked out between the businesses in Kensington and the city — the main condition being that it’s required to have insurance and is off the street before the snow plows start running.

      (Though it was originally just parked in a parking space; during those first few months reportedly even feeding coins into the nearby metre didn’t stop it from eventually being towed away.)

  28. Anonymous says:

    reminds me of a great restaurant in york (yorkshire, uk) http://www.thebluebicycle.com/ (although theirs is not an abandoned bike obviously!)

  29. stuiethegod says:

    It’s international distress orange for the record. One of my favorite neon colors simply because of it’s ability to shift from orange to pink depending on the light / color of the surrounding environment. As for the ‘art’ debate, idk how I feel about it, but I know if I were that guy I’d be kinda annoyed after putting in all that effort to sand and prime that bike. I agree that he should talk to that gallery though…

  30. stab jackson says:

    this really isn’t about money per se.
    see, the city hires somebody for a job, but this job is boring and fraught with psychological destruction.
    the person who works this job probably has some form of mental illness like depression, anger, sadness etc.
    this person is trapped in their own hell, which tells them to do things like this. BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY CANNOT SEE BEAUTY ANYMORE.

  31. yrarbil cilbup says:

    So if I like get a spray can and a piece of junk and spray it, so that it gets soooo pitted…. waguhh… Does like make me an artist? Dude? Really man? I wanna no.

  32. bardfinn says:

    Laches. Toronto failed to exercise their right to object to or affect the placement of the bicycle for /years/. Thus, they lost it. They have no right to levy fines or demand anything from anyone — Pay a city employee to get it free, haul it off, and dispose of it according to ALL APPLICABLE LAWS. or just leave it the fuck alone.

    • Ugly Canuck says:

      Maybe the relevant time period for laches only starts to run once they knew of a specific identity -ie only once they could have brought the charge.

      How long has it been since they ID’d the owner, that is, the one who took possession of the abandoned property?

      Did they bring the charge promptly once so aware?

      Should that matter, do you think?

      • bardfinn says:

        It’s on public property, uncontested, unremoved. To notify the owner, they need merely affix a notice to it stating that it will be removed in X days if not removed by the owner. They failed to do so – signalling that they were waiving their rights. It has nothing to do with whether or not they found an actual owner – it has to do with the fact that they failed to act, and by their inaction, essentially consented to the placement of the bike.

        It clearly, however, is not property of the city of Toronto, and graffiting an abandoned vehicle that is on public property does not create ownership. Thus, the city of Toronto’s sole remedy is to affix a notice to the vehicle, and if (when) the “owner” fails to remove it, then they remove it and dispose of it. or just leave it the fuck alone. Under /no/ circumstances should they be fining the artists, who – for all the City knows – painted the bike with the permission of the owner.

  33. nixiebunny says:

    I’m calling BS on this whole abandoned bike thing.

    The tires are inflated!

  34. McLuhanesque says:

    In Toronto (actually, all of Canada) Orange *IS* Pink.

    (For those of you in the audience who are not Canadian, orange is the colour of the New Democratic Party, which is our left-wing, union-supported/ing political party, now the official opposition in federal Parliament. There was a further, recent reference to left-wingers as “pinkos” by one Don Cherry, a bombastic television hockey commentator, known for wearing flamboyant sports jackets and populist, right-wing political views, during the inauguration of Toronto’s current mayor, Rob Ford, who himself is a populist, right-wing, some-would-say-small-minded, anti-public-art bombast.)

  35. penguinchris says:

    The bike is unmistakably pink. In no way can anyone claim that this is orange, even “International Distress Orange” which supposedly looks pink in certain situations. In case anyone is wondering, this boingboing comment thread is the only google result for “international distress orange neon paint”…

    The Golden Gate Bridge is painted International Orange. Most would probably say it was a shade of red, not orange. So clearly this is a non-straightforward area of the color spectrum. But the bike is pink.

    • holtt says:

      The bike is unmistakably pink. In no way can anyone claim that this is orange, even “International Distress Orange” which supposedly looks pink in certain situations. In case anyone is wondering, this boingboing comment thread is the only google result for “international distress orange neon paint”…

      In case YOU are wondering, here is a quote from the original post about this…

      Once the primer was dry, I spray painted the bike neon orange

      I shall not rest until this color/colour travesty of justice is made clear, even if I have to pull out my RGB9000.

      • holtt says:

        Note to self – close block quote next time…

        Once the primer was dry, I spray painted the bike neon orange. A colour Vanessa and I picked out together at Montana Colours, aka The Bomb Shelter.

  36. Anonymous says:

    hahaha that gives me an awesome idea: Is your city lazy and corrupt? start painting things that need fixing bright fucking PINK.
    Or orange, whatever.

    • Charles H. says:

      The problem is that, without clear indications that it’s not an in-use bicycle (e.g. bent tires, missing parts, painted bright orange/pink, &c.), more aggressive enforcement results in stories like this one.

  37. Anonymous says:

    But the city has no one to fine — no one owns the bike, right? Ignore it!

  38. Deidzoeb says:

    “Those two foot high weeds in my back yard are not violating the city ordinance for maximum grass height of 12 inches. My back yard is an art installation, you philistines!” Does this only work if you spray paint it pink?

  39. g0d5m15t4k3 says:

    I was looking at the Google Street views that people had posted and agree: the hot pink painted bike in the article photo is the same bike that, in Google Street View, is attached to the utility pole. I have a couple of ideas: perhaps the bike isn’t abandoned and someone always parks it near there. OR, the picture is actually a photoshop and the bike is attached to the pole still, not the bike rack.

    • Anonymous says:

      The Google Street view does not show the same bike.

      Google Bike – Has Gears, Does not have fender, Does not have reflector behind seat, has less separation between seat and cross bar, cross bars separate at greater angle from front to back, has reflector on back tire, does not have finger moldings on handlebar grips, does not have same bend in front forks, is not the same bike!

      Oh, pink on final shot but neon orange in making of pictures. Chalk it up to lighting.

  40. jeffwise says:

    I’m finding this kind of thing increasingly tiresome, evidence that “Art” is an imaginary category of behavior that the privileged invoke to justify self-indulgence.

    • blacksquare says:

      My problem is with people who insist that every homemade public art project be permanent. As soon as something is called art an assumption arises that it has to be preserved forever. I think that’s wrong and stifling. In fact, it’s an attitude that runs counter to the sense of change and dynamism that makes urban life interesting.

      Does this bike really need to be there for more than six days for it to realize the maker’s ambition for a ‘really-fucking-cool-urban-street-project.’? Maybe, if people liked it, the pink bike could be the model for new projects in the future rather than some end point of aesthetic accomplishment. (The ‘artists’ sense of self-satisfaction with the paint job is a bit much).

      And think about this: What if these artists ‘fight’ the ordinance and get the city to bend the rules allowing the bike to be there forever. Then the city will officially have a stake in this ‘artwork.’ A ruling will be handed down. The bike will stand forever as a monument to the ‘courage’ of some city council member who stood up for art while appeasing an influential demographic. Not exactly radical anymore at that point…

    • Anonymous says:

      Oh, I see. So no matter how much an artist may struggle or sacrifice for their art, no matter how much they work, how much of themselves they put into it, how much thought they put into it, how many years of toil they go through, how poor they are, whether they’re disabled, a person of color, Deaf, queer, trans, non-neurotypical, etc., the moment they paint a bicycle pink and install a flower basket, they’re just a privileged person invoking an imaginary category of behavior in order to justify self-indulgence.

      Wow.

      I’ve got a long day of painting and drawing ahead of me (project deadlines, don’tcha know), so I’ll be sure not to redecorate any bicycles lest all my effort magically turn to fairy dust and float away on the wind.

    • OntarioJer says:

      So, I find your post a bit odd. Are you against art, or against art you don’t like, or against those who are against art or art that they don’t like?

      • jeffwise says:

        What I mean is that when someone says they’re making “art,” they’re attempting to preempt your response to whatever behavior they happen to be engaging in. To put a frame around what they did — to solicit admiration and praise for an act that otherwise might not merit much. For example, it’s a free country, if I want to I can walk around town all afternoon handing out business cards to people. No harm, no foul, right? Now imagine that I decide to create and produce my own performance-art piece, in which I’ll interrogate 21st century societal norms by walking around handing out business cards. Is that mind-blowing, or just the same thing I was doing before? Or, to put it another way, imagine that this whole post unfolded without the use of the word “art”: what if this guy said that he decided to paint an abandoned bike, he thought it looked nice, and the city decided to cart the thing away anyhow. Seems less epically tragic, somehow, no?

        • emmdeeaych says:

          i think it’s that you view what other people are doing as trying “to solicit admiration and praise for an act that otherwise might not merit much. ”

          Do you really think witholding your admiration or praise is on their agenda? Do you really think artists do art for YOU? This may be the basis of your clear misunderstanding of artists.

          • Beauregard says:

            “Do you really think artists do art for YOU?”

            It seems you are implying that artists do not make art for an audience. I don’t understand that statement at all; nearly every artist creates for an audience. In fact, this bike seems to be an incredibly visible version of that. In using a bright color and commenting on how happy the bike made people, the artist is confirming that she made this for others to view.

          • emmdeeaych says:

            Jimwise was basically saying that if he changed his name to “Art” his shit would be protected on the sidewalk as would he for dropping it there in front of young children. Yes, that is an absurd version of what he was saying, but it does expose the holes in his logic a bit.

            Art, in my experience, is pretty selfish, done to the standards of the artist. Commercial Art OTOH often shows that it is the work of a committee.

            I like the bike, I do not like billboards.

          • Anonymous says:

            No, most do it for money.

  41. g0d5m15t4k3 says:

    Oh, someone mentioned the fender. Yeah the pink bike and google street bike are not the same. In either event, this artist may get charged with defacing someone’s bike!

  42. Anonymous says:

    Totally! I get the exact same feeling about people who post blog comments.

  43. shadowfirebird says:

    I suppose they couldn’t be bothered to do anything about the bike before, because they didn’t know who to fine?

    That’s what you get for having a sense of civic responsibility, I suppose: “no good deed goes unpunished”…

    • Ugly Canuck says:

      “I suppose they couldn’t be bothered to do anything about the bike before, because they didn’t know who to fine?”

      Ah the perils of claiming abandoned property!
      That IS a publicly-owned and built bike rack/ring that now-privately owned (and an act of ownership HAS taken place – somebody took control of the bike by painting it) bike is chained to, is it not?

      In general, if they can find them, they can fine ‘em, just fine.

      But my guess is that they’d rather the article simply be removed/detached from public property….

      • Charles H. says:

        As a comment on the “fined” bit, that conclusion appears to be based on the text of the notice placed on the bike:

        Bikes are prohibited from being stored on City property. Please remove it immediately or it will be removed by City Forces at your expense.

        If you go searching on the web you can find that text elsewhere, as it seems to be the standard text for “we think this bike is abandoned and will cart it away it if it is not moved” notices.

        I’m trying to find out if anyone has ever actually been charged those threatened expenses if they didn’t try and reclaim the bike after it was impounded, but I’m going to go out on a limb and venture that the answer’s “No”. (After all, if no one claims it then it probably was abandoned and it likely becomes more trouble than it’s worth to prove ownership.)

        • joeposts says:

          Since DECO Labels won the election, the city has been going nuts with anti-graffiti ‘citations’ that are very similar to the notice left on the bike.

          If there is unauthorized paint on a shop’s exterior, the shop owner gets a notice from the city telling them to remove the graffiti (at the shop-owners expense) or have the city bill them for removal. It can cost thousands of dollars if the graffiti is awkwardly placed or if it’s painted over an old brick wall that can’t be washed. And a blank wall is a graffiti magnet, so the only people happy about this are suburban voters who HATE DOWNTOWN TORONTONIANS, and vandals looking for a new place to paint.

          In this case it looks like the city figures the ‘vandal’ and ‘owner’ are the same, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Mayors Ford sent some henchmen to hassle the artist/shop owner over this, if the city has to remove the bike.

          I think DECO Labels should print up and sell anti-graffiti stickers that shop owners can stick over graffiti. The profits can be used to fund Rob Ford’s legal fund to help him with his election finance audit.

          • Charles H. says:

            These notices, worded in the exact same manner, have been attached to bikes that were deemed to be misusing city bike rings since at least back when Miller was still mayor. I get that you don’t like Rob Ford, but he appears to have nothing to do with this particular case.

          • joeposts says:

            Sure, and graffiti citations aren’t new either. What’s new is the aggressiveness – Ford did promise to ‘clean up’ downtown Toronto, and I’ve read that during the last few months they’ve issued as many citations as they issued during Miller’s last 3 years as mayor. There’s definitely been a ramping-up of enforcement when it comes to graffiti, and it’s only hurting legitimate artists, taxpayers and property owners.

            And I don’t care if Ford had nothing to do with it (even though he kinda does) because I’ll blame him if the subway is delayed 10 minutes. Or if I slip on a pebble on the sidewalk. Or if my streetmeat is overcooked. He promised to fix EVERYTHING, did he not? :-)

    • T'Pau says:

      That’s government working for the People for ya.

  44. Isoko says:

    I seem to remember this happening in Chicago too – with a Ghost Bike. http://ghostbikes.org/

    The City wanted it moved from the bike rack. The compromise was to lock it instead to a street sign pole (less security for the bike, of course, but a good locking point is unnecessary for a sculpture bike).

    In this case, I can see that the neon bike is locked to a municipal bike rack, taking actual bike parking space. I see the point in wanting it moved, but the artist should get a chance to put it somewhere that doesn’t hinder people who want to use the rack.

  45. Anonymous says:

    and people wonder why the rest of Canada hates toronto.
    That’s right; I’ve downgraded toronto to lower capitalization.

  46. commenterx says:

    Someone in the neighborhood complained.

    I wouldn’t have. I think it looks great. A lot better than a rusted heap.

  47. Jake0748 says:

    “…I see the point in wanting it moved…” Then by all means, let the city move it. Buncha jerks.

    And yeah, I’m with Jeffwise @1, “I’m finding this kind of thing increasingly tiresome”.

  48. Anonymous says:

    Holy crap! So if I go around my neighborhood painting all the rusty trash bikes, I can FINALLY get the city to get rid of the damned things!? My god! Brilliant!

  49. Anonymous says:

    You don’t have to be an idiot to be a public official (or an art critic, apparently), but it must help.

  50. Anonymous says:

    how often would one have to unlock and use it to be allowed to keep it there, and for how long?

    .~.

  51. Anonymous says:

    “The funny thing is that this bike has been sitting in the same place for years, unnoticed by the city. However, once it is brightened and made beautiful, it’s got to go.”

  52. willy says:

    I don’t care one way or another whether the bike stays or is removed; but there sure as hell ought to be a hefty fine for planting pink petunias on a “neon orange” bicycle. Ack!

  53. EeyoreX says:

    If the city wants it gone, then the city may remove it, but I don’t see how the city could possibly fine the artists and make it stick: It’s not their bike, they didn’t put it there and they’ve never even have had the key to the lock. Not their responsability on any level.

    I mean, if I find a sidewalk-parked automobile and I go paint it pink, does it become my property? Hmmm… that opens up some interesting possibilities…

    • BookGuy says:

      Sounds like a precedent to me. The next time I see that Audi R8 outside my work, I’m going to work with some pink spray paint.

    • Stooge says:

      The artist is claiming ownership of the bike though:

      Yesterday, I arrived to the gallery with flowers, ready to plant them in the basket, only to find a notice from the city stapled to our neon bike.

      • Bill Barth says:

        Look carefully. The pink bike has a fender and is attached to the right-most bike rack. The bike in the Google StreetView shot is on the light pole and has no rear fender.

  54. endigo says:

    The bike has not “Been there for years”. It was not there when the Google Street View camera rolled by.
    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=285+Dundas+St.+West&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

  55. lknope says:

    I don’t understand how the city can fine anyone unless they have records on the person who originally registered the bike.

    I enjoy the phrasing of comment #1. It could work for so many things:

    I’m finding this kind of thing increasingly tiresome, evidence that “Capitalism” is an imaginary category of behavior that the privileged invoke to justify self-indulgence.

    I’m finding this kind of thing increasingly tiresome, evidence that the “Free Market” is an imaginary category of behavior that the privileged invoke to justify self-indulgence.

    I’m finding this kind of thing increasingly tiresome, evidence that “War” is an imaginary category of behavior that the privileged invoke to justify self-indulgence.

    I’m finding this kind of thing increasingly tiresome, evidence that “Religion” is an imaginary category of behavior that the privileged invoke to justify self-indulgence.

    • retrac13 says:

      Well done!

    • emmdeeaych says:

      you know, repeating the same thing 4 times while changing one word is…. pretty self-indulgent.

      Not the same thing as wrong, mind you. But you detract from your message by indulging so.

      • lknope says:

        What do you expect from a person of privelege? Of course I’m going to be self-indulgent! And I will find a way to justify it!

        If painting the bike makes it yours, does that mean if you paint an abandoned building, you own the building?

        • emmdeeaych says:

          It would be my privilege to give ‘em 100 bucks for the paint to figure that out. Good questions.

        • Ugly Canuck says:

          No transfers of ownership of real estate without a deed.

          But otherwise, if you voluntarily and of your own free will take charge of something otherwise abandoned, you own it…sometimes that even works with real estate, if you take charge of it for a long enough time, decades, usually.

          Once that ownership is shown to have happened, you become responsible for the property – that’s what “ownership” means.

          As to this artwork, maybe it’d be different if it had been painted anonymously.

          But… “You paint it, you own it?”, as a general principle?

          If only life were so simple!

  56. Howard Q. Bikeman says:

    The piece of art is taking up an otherwise useful bike parking space. Perhaps the owner can donate the bike to the art gallery located 10 feet away for display in the window located, again, 10 feet away?

  57. royaltrux says:

    Oh, maybe that’s not the same bike, my bad.

  58. AlanJCastonguay says:

    That’s no bike. You’ve created an attractive bike-shaped planter and donated it to the city on the condition that it’s non-movable.

    If anything, the artist is guilty of leaving his paint laying around in a bike-shape next to some flowers.

  59. commenterx says:

    lknope, Do you have to register bicycles in Canada?

    Also, is that a bicycle hitching post? If so, then why is the city of Toronto claiming the problem is “a bike stored on public property.” That’s what the post is for, right?

    If, however, the problem is an abandoned bike hogging up parking space for functioning bicycles, then the city should just haul it away.

    • joeposts says:

      meh.. there’s not exactly a shortage of bike parking in Toronto. Plus that post isn’t unusable, a cyclist could lock it to the other side, or even through the artcycle.

      Besides, there are 56,753 abandoned bicycles chained to various poles and posts in downtown (I counted) and nobody does anything about them. A lot of them don’t even have wheels. I bet someone complained because it was painted pink (a political reference, obviously). Mayor Doug Ford has declared War On Graffiti and there’s nothing Ford Nation hates more than pinko bicycles.

      • commenterx says:

        joeposts,

        Thanks for your input. It makes this story a lot more interesting.

        I hadn’t heard of Don Cherry, before. He is quite a character.

      • holtt says:

        I bet someone complained because it was painted pink (a political reference, obviously). Mayor Doug Ford has declared War On Graffiti and there’s nothing Ford Nation hates more than pinko bicycles.

        Hardly. BECAUSE IT IS ORANGE NOT PINK!!!

        I shall not waver in my defense of this whitewash of color!

        • joeposts says:

          It’s pink. It’s pink..? It’s pink!

          I shall not waver in defense of my tongue-in-cheek-but-then-it-made-sense-type comment.

          .

          .

          (it does look orange in the reflection)

Leave a Reply