June 29, 2007
Graffiti Removal to Become Everyone's Problem
Mayor Adrian Fenty has announced plans to begin removing graffiti from private property without first getting approval from owners. The move comes after a recent increase in graffiti vandalism across the city, and a subsequent effort to clean up tags more quickly.
Owners of buildings with new graffiti would first be asked to give consent to remove it, with notices left giving them information on how to to pick up graffiti-removal kits or paint vouchers from DPW to get rid of the markings themselves. The kit includes a paint roller, a paint pan and solvent that is applied to graffiti on the sides of buildings before it is sprayed with a high-pressure hose. Owners can also request that DPW remove graffiti for them. Ignoring the notice could result in legal action, including paying 2 1/2 times the cost of the graffiti removal plus $500 for each violation notice.
The legislation would also increase the reward for information that leads to the conviction of a tagger, raising it from $50 to $500. Penalties for tagging range from $250 to $5,000 in fines and can carry a jail term of up to one year.
Photo by the horrible symbolism.
|
So, DC will ask owners of tagged property to either allow the city to remove it or do it themselves? And, if the owners are non-responsive the tags will be cleaned at the owners' expense? Sounds good to me.
Listening to NPR interview an anonymous North East Graffiti "artist" justify his "art" made me want to track down the NPR reporter, hold a gun to his face, and force him to reveal the graffiti artist's identity, so I could find that punk make a vertical slice up his abdomen with my Emerson Karambit, yank out his intestines and write my name on his door with his shit and blood.
Graffiti is lame.
-the economics major
(1) Is the solvent environmentally friendly? It will probably end up in the Anacostia.
(2) What if someone tags my building and I like the way it looks and don't want it removed? Apparently this is not an option under the mayor's plan.
This sounds like the "broken glass" theory that was very effective in NYC on their subways. However, in order for this to work, everyone has to go along with the plan. Otherwise, all we have is a tragedy of the commons, and everyone loses.
And seriously, guest, do you really think you'd like it if someone spray painted their name on the front of your building? Unless it's seriously a work of art, it serves no purpose other than to detract from the nice look of a neighborhood.
I tend to agree with where "guest" is coming from(the guest above Loganite). Going further, what if the property owner was the one who sprayed his own wall, whether a written tag, or a graphic mural? Is that really illegal?
In a private residential property, I believe the owner should be able to determine what paint design(s) and colors are displayed on his/her walls. The decision of what constitutes a serious work of art is totally subjective. So who can really say which wall paintings are art, and which are not? And why would certain painting styles such as street art be banned whereas wreathes, garden decorations, and political signs remain unregulated? Unless the city has a code--similar to that of a gated community--that requires home exteriors to be painted with certain colors and with a single color per wall surface, then this is essentially a first amendment violation for owners who want to display spraypainted art on the walls of their homes.
However, in cases of vandalism, when the walls are marked by someone without the permission of the owner, I have no problem with the city pushing for cleanups. And I could also support a policy that focuses on removing graffiti from any commercial property. Besides, if the actual writing on the wall is obscene or has specific content that is offensive, there are already other laws to prevent such misconduct in public. So if a piece of graffiti is not violent, obscene, sexual, or a clear turf claim by a gang, what harm does it really do besides adding a little individuality and character to the cityscape?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/methticalman/sets/72157594276926516/
The new punishments still aren’t harsh enough. If a child molester can be chemically castrated, why can’t we cut off tagger’s index fingers to keep them from tagging?
Guest#3 and indiecognition-
DPW tells me the solvent is environmentally friendly, more effective than traditional solvents, and smells like Murphy's Oil Soap. It's a new product out of Australia.
Also, I'm pretty sure the city's graffiti people can tell the difference between tagging and art. They see a lot of it. This isn't aimed at planned or allowed graffiti, it's a basic maintenance ordinance. Just as there are laws controlling cleanliness and maintenance in people's yards. You wouldn't expect an occupied building to have 4' high weeds in the yard, would you? This measure is aimed at those owners who do not exert any active control over the appearance of their property. That doesn't sound like you. If some local kids paint their names on your wall with your permission, I'm pretty sure the city will listen to and accept your explanation. In fact, the city is even looking at the creation of specific murals and sites for just this. I guess you just volunteered your house? ;)
The best story I ever heard about getting back at a tagger was when the judge had the tagger bring his junk to court..stereo..t-shirts...walkman.etc.
He then had the owners of the buildings that got tagged come in and spray paint them. Tagger tears.
"Listening to NPR interview an anonymous North East Graffiti "artist" justify his "art" made me want to track down the NPR reporter, hold a gun to his face, and force him to reveal the graffiti artist's identity, so I could find that punk make a vertical slice up his abdomen with my Emerson Karambit, yank out his intestines and write my name on his door with his shit and blood.
Graffiti is lame."
This statement made me laugh. I support this type of justice system for graffiti artists. Let's create a petition.
from the article in the wash times it just seems like they are making all graffiti illegal, whether it is condoned by private property owners or not. until i see some legislation that says otherwise i'm gonna go ahead and say that this is ridiculous. if you want to target gangs or illegal graffiti then fine, but to infringe on the rights of personal property owners is outrageous. and mlb the reason they cut your weeds down if they get to tall is to control vermin. thats a public health issue. personal tags arent necessarily a public health/security issue.
ryan nuanes
Ryan, if it's something the owner gave permission for, then it's not graffiti. And I'm not sure I believe in your hordes of people eager to have their walls, windows, and doors tagged anyway.
Ryan:
My info comes from first-hand conversation with DPW director Howland and from personal participation in council hearings. You are of course free to assume what you want based on and article in the WT.
On that note, wouldn't it be appropriate if the Times adopted the new slogan, "Assume What You Want." It has the same ring of truth as "Fair and Balanced."
Graffiti may be an eyesore, but so are all the gigantic cockroaches that take over at night, the chicken bones, broken glass, abandoned buildings, and empty lots. Graffiti also isn't what makes DC so dangerous. It's the shooting.
I hate to break it to people, but you can't just do whatever you want to property you own. There are assorted zoning and planning boards, as well as city-imposed guidelines that regulate what a building can and can't look like from the street, etc.
Right. I mean, people get wrapped up in this ENTIRELY FALSE argument where "Who's to say what's art (huffs paint)... man. (exhales)." The city and the community makes that decision, duh! It's like in college we got all wrapped up in ideas, man, and then around age 40 we realize that those arguments entirely missed the point, were wrong-headed and we ignore the younger generation just like my older sister ignored me. Who's to say what's art? ME! dumbass! I get to make that decision. And if you don't like it, I don't care. I will call the mayor to make you mow your lawn, pick up trash and shovel your sidewalk too. because I can!
So shape up, graffiti is from MY generation (late 70s) and the younger kids haven't done one single piece that could compare to the entire trains of 1979-81. Graffiti is for 45 yr old old farts reliving the glory days of discos and Soulsonic Force. the idea that the kids have brought nothing new to it in 25 years is so incredibly lame that it SHOULD be eliminated just to thumb our nose in your face.
Experience Unlimited at the Black Hole near Howard. The first show I went to where we drove graffiti guys around afterwards (they showed off their work, but we were too freaked to let them paint and jump back in our car). My sister's son just had a kid, making me a great-uncle. If I was a white grandfather who did graffiti would it make you all realize how y'all are big poseurs?