Street art divides my city every election cycle — some call it vandalism, others see it as a cultural asset. I've walked past the same alley for years, and the difference between a tagged wall and a commissioned mural is night and day in how people treat the space. But is a mural just a polished form of graffiti, or does the intent behind it change the value entirely? I lean toward murals having real worth, yet I admit that line blurs when a property owner never consented to the art on their building. Does public art's impact on a neighborhood justify overriding individual property rights?