It's on private property, but still.
I think that is an important distinction. Namely, instead of an indictment of the sentiments of an entire community, it becomes more of a question about the motives of the owner of the property.
Speaking of which, according to
Wikipedia, it wasn't erected in Seattle as a monument to Lenin's greatness or anything, and the residents of the neighborhood seem to think of it more ironically than as a monument extolling the virtues of totalitarian, single-party rule. I think that's another important difference.
Ss far as I know, there hasn't been any wide spread protests against it standing where it is; that is yet, in my opinion, another important difference.
Still, I can see how immigrants from eastern Europe, especially older ones, would be taken back by seeing it. It is certainly understandable that someone may protest against a statue of intolerant dictator who set up a horrible totalitarian regime.
Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg