Opinion: Oregon Mural controversy is all Smoke and no Fire

By Will Tallman

Local business Bad Ash Cigars’ colorful new mural in downtown Oregon has certainly caused a stir within the community. It is evident that a vast majority of residents are far more interested in gossip and outrage than objective facts.

The former Oregon Theatre, located smack-dab in the middle of downtown Oregon, was vacant for nearly ten years before Bad Ash Cigars took up residency in July of 2023. The opening of a new small business is an exciting prospect to anyone invested in the growth and development of a small town. Unfortunately, minor civic disagreements between the City of Oregon and Bad Ash Cigars have been blown out of proportion, resulting in a social media frenzy which has done nothing to clear the air regarding what actually took place.

According to the City of Oregon, it was communicated during civic meetings with Bad Ash Cigars that there were certain legal requirements that needed to be met in order for the mural to be constructed. One of these requirements is that the mural is not permitted to display the business’ name on the storefront, as it would then fall under the classification of a sign, which qualifies as an advertisement for the business. Because of the mural’s size (which stretches across the entire storefront of the building), it would far exceed the limitations put in place for business signage. To their credit, Bad Ash complied, and the finished mural contains no depiction of the business name on the storefront. However, the controversy didn’t end there.

In a Facebook post from August 2nd, the company stated that “The City of Oregon…[has] an issue with our mural and it has been called offensive, as has our company name.” The post goes on to claim (somewhat erroneously) that the mural was “attracting people…who would have never [sic] stopped in Oregon.” The post concludes that the alleged customers which the mural has drawn to Oregon “are making purchases here and all the downtown businesses are getting additional business to boot.” Despite this public proclamation of civic subterfuge, there is no verifiable evidence that the presence of the Bad Ash mural has contributed to a boost in income for other local businesses.

Unfortunately, that didn’t stop social media groups centered around Ogle County current events from stoking the flames of controversy. Facebook user Rita Leonard responded that the mural is “beautiful…I would think the city council should have more important things on their agenda than harassing a small business owner.” It is unclear what “harassment” has taken place, but her sentiments were echoed by fellow group member Derek Weegens: “Politics and grease the palm.”, he begins his post, before concluding: “Thank your ONE-SIDED CITY GOVERNMENT”, followed by a string of emojis seemingly meant to convey a vague accusation of conspiracy on the City’s behalf.

The mural has gone on to incite vitriolic debate within the community’s social media forums, but not all community members are on board with the outrage. One Facebook user, whose name has been precluded lest she be tarred and feathered on the Oregon courthouse lawn, posted the following: “I personally don’t see a problem with it. However, was it approved before it was done?” This seems like a downright logical comment, and the anonymous Facebook user concludes by saying “The city has a policy for building exteriors. Any changes have to be submitted and approved prior to it being done. It is in the contract you sign when registering your business in town. I had to have a mock-up done and submit it when I was going to put up an awning.” This is a powerful example of how the Bad Ash mural debate is not an instance of the big, bad city thrusting a symbolic jackboot into the windpipe of a burgeoning small business. There are simply civic requirements that must be adhered to. 

The City of Oregon has been transparent in their response to the mural. Dean DeHaan, who represents Oregon as City Manager, responded to the uproar by stating that “the issue in contention is…that a beautiful mural…included what we believe is an element of advertising, which is the cigar at the bottom corner of it, and so with that, that creates…a piece of advertising.” The issue regarding the unexpected inclusion of the image of a large, smoking cigar has become a focal point of the debate. DeHaan addresses this by saying “I think [there was] maybe a little bit of miscommunication of whether or not the cigar should have been included into the mural, which we had kind of communicated to them during the process.” In short, the city had apparently agreed to the construction of the mural under the condition that there would be no image of a cigar present.

 It seems clear that despite numerous examples of how the City of Oregon have given this small business a fair shake, a large portion of the Oregon community have chosen to disregard this in favor of gossip and outrage. It is unfortunate that these dissidents of city policy don’t research further into the issue, but what would there be to complain about, then?