Cracking Down on Graffiti "Artists"

[guywithashovel]

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live...litics&sid=101

This article was in this morning's paper.

Basically, my city wants to get toughter on the buffoons who put graffiti on buildings and other property. The article even cites a 19 year-old guy who was sentenced to a year in jail for graffiti.

As I was reading this article, this part initially hit me the wrong way.

Klein also is considering a neighborhood leader's suggestion to require owners of occupied properties that have been tagged to remove the graffiti within 60 days.

Klein said although these owners are victims, graffiti hurts neighborhoods. He said he will try to find money to help businesses and homeowners pay to remove graffiti.

The city currently requires owners of vacant properties to remove graffiti within 30 days. If they don't, they face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine

I understand the want and need to remove graffiti as soon as possible. As the article points out, it can hurt property values. However, the penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 dollar fine is about half what that 19 year-old got for actually putting the graffiti up (and he got a year because he was a repeat offender). Seems a bit much.

I know that some defenders of this proposal might point out that since the graffiti hurts the neighborhood, this is just a cold, hard fact of life that people need to deal with, but I can't help but think about how I would feel if I were a property owner in this situation. Some cretin vandalizes my property, and then I have the potential of being criminalized if I don't do something about it quick enough. Now, even if there were no potential penalty, I would probably still get it cleaned up ASAP because I like to keep things neat and presentable.

Also, instead of having people sit in jail for a year (or whatever length of time their sentence is), why not have them go out and clean up the graffiti they put up (as well as any other messes that have been made around town)? Take that guy in the article who got sentenced to a year because of repeat offenses. Have him go out and clean up some of this "art" that has been put up in people's neighborhoods. He apparently likes to put it up, so let him see what it's like to clean it up. Maybe that wouldn't be effective, but I just like punishments that make people assume responsibility for what they do.

[HYHYBT]

I have a bit of a different problem with those requirements: the 30 day limit for vacant property seems far too short, because it's not unreasonable, if the property is vacant, for the owner not even to *see* it for longer than that.

For occupied property.... the penalty is too high, but 60 days is reasonable. I do have a theoretical objection that perhaps someone would be penalized for non-vandalism decoration they had done or approved themselves, but other than that...

[Hyena Dandy]

Graffiti is art. But it should not be put on the property of people who don't want it there.

That said, if you DO want it there, they're going to penalize you because you wanted to change your house?

Or if someone puts it on, and you end up liking it, you go to jail?

[lordlundar]

My city enacted similar laws, and it's had some effect, though I doubt a huge amount.

The catch is that it's largely subjective. I've seen a couple of pieces that are more artwork than tagging. The city seems to think so as well because it's been around for a while.

I still think the best way to counter it is to put up actual mural artwork. I haven't seen any murals in the city be tagged, and I don't think I ever will.

[Rageaholic]

So you can go to jail for not cleaning graffiti off of your own property? Even if you don't give a damn one way or the other? Genious, just genious. Just another unnecessary way to fill up prisons.

I second the notion of making the offenders clean up the graffiti. Not only does the punishment actually fit the crime, but it wouldn't put the burdon on the wrong people. Kill two birds with one stone.

[Amanita]

I took a walk across the Manhattan Bridge in NYC and the amount of tags all over that beautiful structure was heartbreaking.
I remember a famous NYC bridge photographer, Dave Frieder aka "The Bridge Man" saying that if he had his way, offenders would have their faces spraypainted, then be made to scrub graffitti off of bridges for a year.

[Andara Bledin]

I still think the best way to counter it is to put up actual mural artwork. I haven't seen any murals in the city be tagged, and I don't think I ever will.

Murals do get tagged. But not anywhere near the degree that open spaces will.

There are graffiti artists, and there are graffiti vandals. I'm not saying that the artists aren't also vandals when they deface a property without permission, but at lest they aren't merely marking territory like some mindless pack animal.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

In this small town, it's scarce; I only ever see it on trains. But nary a one looked better with the graffiti than it would without it.

[Andara Bledin]

Social commentary via grafitti:

Banksy

Some of his work is stark and unsettling when you think about what it represents.

^-.-^

[blas87]

I only see graffiti on trains that go by, and that's a rarity anyways. It's trains that come to and from Minneapolis, so I'm assuming most of those pictures are gang symbols or someone's personal "marking".

Oh, and not to mention the graffiti that's been posted on property of all the Republican senators and leaders lately in good old Cheeseland.