Government funding for street art often gets tangled in debates about taste and property rights, but I think we're asking the wrong question. When a mural goes up in a neglected neighborhood, it can shift how residents feel about their own streets and even deter petty crime. Of course, not every piece is a masterpiece, and some projects do feel like bureaucratic vanity. Still, I've seen blank walls become gathering points, and that social value seems worth more than aesthetic perfection. Doesn't the true measure of public art lie in its impact on community identity rather than its gallery appeal?