ROSCOE, NY — After seven-and-a-half months spent displayed in an unfinished state, a mural that sparked controversy within the hamlet of Roscoe has been pained over. 

The mural, if finished, would have displayed the words “time to unperson” in light text on a dark background. “Unperson” is a concept from George Orwell’s book “1984,” a text depicting a fictional repressive government; it denotes the process of removing a political dissident entirely from existence through alteration to the written and visual historic record. 

The mural’s artist, Seth Carnes, had filed a complaint in federal court prior to the mural’s destruction, attempting to protect it and to secure his ability to complete it; that complaint was updated following the mural’s destruction in early March. The complaint accuses municipal officials and a prominent citizen within the town, Phil Vallone, of carrying out an Orwellian campaign of free-speech repression, a campaign that halted the mural’s completion and ultimately resulted in its destruction. Town of Rockland officials have maintained that the mural breaks the town’s regulations on signage, while privately acknowledges pressure to replace the mural with something that’s more in line with Roscoe’s “Trout Town” branding, according to the complaint. 

The case brings up questions of free speech and artistic expression that expand beyond Roscoe’s borders, with Carnes alleging that the situation with the mural has harmed his ability to create art in other places. More fundamentally, it raises the question of who is allowed to belong in the Roscoe community. Does Roscoe’s identity as Trout Town USA have room for other voices within it? Or is the hamlet’s identify incompatible with counter-cultural artistic expression? The particulars in the case disagree. 

Speaking with the River Reporter in August 2025, Vallone said that, “If the artist can’t create a unifying message, he should bring his artwork elsewhere. There’s one thing to be a provocative artist, as he has been referred to; there is another to be simply divisive.”

“From the aggressive reaction by a few men, one may assume Roscoe is an unwelcome place for artists or any triggering message. In fact, there are many good people and artists, so it’s mainly a question of why these men acted in this way,” Carnes told the River Reporter. 

Trouble with the town

The Town of Rockland had issued a citation to Sunday Home, the business occupying the building on which was painted the mural, on August 5, 2025, stating that the installation of the mural without a permit breached the town’s zoning regulations, and that failure to remove it would be a punishable offense. 

Carnes and Sunday Home disputed this citation. They saw the mural as artwork, not as a sign, and said that even if it was a sign, the town’s zoning ordinances exempt political signs and expressions of personal opinion from permit requirements. 

Besides, reads the complaint, the town’s decision to initiate enforcement action here wasn’t a neutral one. There are plenty of murals in Roscoe that haven’t required permits, alleges the complaint; only in this case did the town act. “The town’s enforcement action regarding Carnes’ mural was not based on neutral zoning concerns but was triggered by objection to the mural’s message by a politically connected member of the community and by government actors, including the town supervisor and town code enforcer,” the complaint alleges. 

The complaint also details a phone call between Carnes and town board member Christine Routledge allegedly outlining some of the pressures placed on the mural. 

“Councilwoman Routledge asked Carnes if he was willing to change the content of the mural, noting that Vallone had donated a lot of money to the town and wanted a mural in line with Roscoe’s branding as ‘Trout Town USA,’ adventure and relaxation,” alleges the complaint. “Councilwoman Routledge also stated that she had spoken with town supervisor Eggleton, who also felt the mural should have a different message more in line with Roscoe’s branding.”

Carnes filed the initial federal complaint shortly before the mural was destroyed. The filing came after extended efforts to resolve the issue with the town, he said. 

“Once the Town of Rockland issued a citation, they received two letters, one from Sunday Home, then from me, through my lawyer, asking for retraction and noting First Amendment violations, with no response,” he said. “We followed up over the next few months with multiple communications to the town sharing a wish to discuss and resolve the issue amicably and avoid litigation, including a suggestion to try mediation with DRC Sullivan County, a free and local mediation organization, with no response.”

“Through the winter, we tried in good faith to find a resolution with the town, but after long delays and a new threat to destroy the mural, we had no choice but to file the complaint,” he said. 

“I can’t explain why the Town of Rockland refused to respond or accept invitations to resolve the issue for months; it doesn’t make sense, considering the resources, stress and time required to handle it otherwise,” he said. “We remain open to discuss and seek resolution.”

Roscoe carries a branding of Trout Town USA.

The mural, destroyed

According to the amended complaint, the mural was painted over on or around March 8. 

The complaint alleges that the owner of the building, Dan Sferrazza, “personally participated in, directed, authorized, ratified and/or permitted the painting over of the mural,” reacting to pressure from the town.

The week of February 15, according to the complaint, Sferrazza removed the surveillance camera watching the mural “and told an officer at the New York State Police barracks in Roscoe that he was considering painting over the mural himself, asking if it would be legal to do so, noting he was concerned that he was being targeted with citations from the town for not attempting to remove the mural.”

From Carnes’ perspective, it wasn’t legal for the mural to be removed. “The mural’s destruction is a violation of the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) of 1990, which prohibits the destruction of a protected piece of art. Several months ago, I warned the building owner about this law,” he said. 

VARA protects an artist’s right to attribution for their works, as well as their right to prevent any intentional modification of their work that damages their reputation, according to a guide from the Philadelphia Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts. The act also protects against any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of an artwork, says the guide; however, this only applies to works of “recognized stature,” where the arts community or a segment of the public thinks the work is significant.

The complaint argues that Carnes’ mural reached a significant level of recognition within the community, with members of the local art scene and various publications engaging with it. “Those who encountered and discussed the mural understood it not as mere decoration or signage, but as a serious artistic intervention engaging themes of censorship, political language, poetics and public discourse. Within the relevant art community, the mural was recognized for both its artistic merit and its intellectual and political resonance,” reads the complaint. 

A chilling effect

The complaint alleges that the Town of Rockland’s conduct has not just impacted the creation of this one work of art, but also impacted the artist’s ability to work elsewhere. 

The complaint alleges that two other proposed murals that Carnes was to paint in Narrowsburg and in Liberty respectively fell through, with the other parties involved having reservations as a result of the town’s enforcement actions. Additionally, Carnes has lost out on the exposure and the professional opportunities that would have resulted had the mural been completed, according to the complaint. 

“The painting over of the mural destroyed Carnes’ artwork and deprived him of the ability to complete, exhibit and maintain it as intended,” reads the complaint. “It also harmed his reputation by obliterating a public artwork that formed part of his ongoing body of work and by preventing the public from viewing the work as intended.”

“My life and the lives of others in the community have been turned upside down from this experience; it’s a sad and stressful result,” Carnes told the River Reporter. “I hope the experience leads to discussion in the community on ways to develop tolerance, instead of hate and aggression for an artwork or person who surfaces uncomfortable thoughts or feelings.”

Editor’s note: Sferrazza told the River Reporter he could not comment due to ongoing litigation, and referred questions to his attorney, Mike McGuire; McGuire did not return requests for comment. Vallone declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation. Eggleton and Town of Rockland Code Enforcement Officer Glenn Gabbard did not return requests for comment.