"California city washes away Black Lives Matter street art after resident asks for ‘MAGA 2020’ painting."

WaPo reports.

Despite granting permission for the temporary street art and even providing the paint for the July 4 project, officials in [Redwood City, California] ordered the painting be cleared from its prime location late last week, KPIX reported....

The request [to paint MAGA 2020] came from local attorney Maria Rutenburg, who [argued] that once the words “Black Lives Matter” were painted on the street, it effectively became “a public forum.” “Everybody has a chance of saying whatever they feel like,” she added. “My speech is just as important as BLM.”

Under First Amendment law, if it's a public forum, then the decisions must be viewpoint neutral. If, on the other hand, you see it as government speech, government can say one thing and not another if it wants. But not everyone wants to litigate.

Rutenburg said she immediately heard back from city officials noting that they were considering her proposal. Just over a week later, they denied her request over concerns that the painting would be a “traffic hazard,” she said....

On Tuesday, Rutenburg [wrote] in an email to The Post... “I think we can all agree that black lives matter, and that equality is important. These are really fundamental truths... But what’s happening is now is one loud political group intimidating the cities into speaking their own private agenda just because cities are afraid of being called racist if they do not give in on the spot.”

The resident behind the "Black Lives Matter" street-painting, Dan Pease, responded: "Black Lives Matter is not a political statement... Black Lives Matter is a human rights issue. Black Lives Matter is a call; it’s a message, it’s a symbol."

Well, "MAGA 2020" is more overtly political, but what would Pease say if Rutenberg's proposal were to paint "America First" on the street? That's my hypothetical — to give the 2 messages the same degree of surface neutrality.

I told you last week what I thought about painting words on the street:

I don't think a political message should be painted in large letters on the street. The street should be kept clear and uncluttered, with the safety of drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians as the overwhelming priority. It's one thing to paint "STOP" crosswise on a street at an intersection, where the idea is to force the driver to be even more aware than usual of the need to stop. It's quite another to paint several words lengthwise on the street and to distract the driver into reading something that isn't related to driving. Quite aside from safety and neatness, the city shouldn't be choosing one political message over others and making it a semi-permanent part of the infrastructure. Political speech should be left to the people to write and speak to each other. That's community — when people can speak to each other, not when they can get the government to repeat their slogan for them in paint on the street.