THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, August 11, 1994 TAG: 9408110009
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 65 lines
Norfolk's graffiti problem isn't major, but ignoring it won't make it go away. To the contrary, the more graffiti a city tolerates, the more it gets. So the city is wise to consider ways to check the increase in this symbol of lawlessness and sign of urban blight.
But the city would be wise, too, to give another long look at some provisions of a proposed ordinance scheduled for City Council's consideration next month.
The ordinance would make creating graffiti a Class 1 misdemeanor with a penalty of fines up to $2,500 and/or up to 12 months in jail. It would make the parent or legal guardian of a juvenile convicted of creating graffiti personally liable for the cost of removing it, and for attorneys' fees incurred in any civil action for damages. In lieu of criminal prosecution, the ordinance would allow community service, for the juvenile and his parent or guardian, with graffiti removal the preferred community service. It would authorize the city to contract with a private graffiti removal service.
It would also make businesses responsible for removing graffiti within 10 days of notice from the city or having the city do the cleanup and place a lien against the property for re-im-burse-ment.
Some business owners are balking at that provision. This ordinance provision, critics say, would punish victims. It could get expensive, particularly for some fledgling businesses in neighborhoods especially vulnerable to graffiti. And it would be more effective to catch more graffitists, both deterring graffiti and providing businesses with a miscreant to either clean up or repay the owner for cleanup costs.
An incidental instance of graffiti can be considered a cost of doing business: Graffiti are more an invitation to graffitists than customers. And business associations could do more to familiarize their members with graffiti-prevention techniques, from landscaping to lighting to paint from which graffiti simply washes off, and cooperate in seeking economies of scale in carrying them out.
But when and where graffiti are frequent, the city should make special effort to apprehend the culprits and deter copy-cats. That's especially true when the graffiti are, as Norfolk police attest, increasingly related to gang activity - po-ten-tial-ly activity more criminal than spray-painting buildings.
One way both to make graffiti less appealing to youth and to provide some inexpensive cleanups is to make graffiti removal a priority method of fulfilling community-service obligations imposed on lawbreakers, juvenile and young adult, convicted of a non-violent of-fense.
The city of Virginia Beach is taking that approach one creative step further. Jail inmates who have been convicted of non-violent offenses and have behaved well while incarcerated may volunteer for graffiti cleanup crews. They are readily available for removing graffiti from public facilities. They can help out private property owners if they give the city a temporary, job-specific easement and if the crew's presence on their property offers only minimal contact with residents or the public.
The emphasis of any anti-graffiti ordinance ought to be less on forcing business owners to protect the image of the city than on deterring and penalizing lawbreakers. It would benefit the city to be as creative at discouraging graffiti as the graffitists are at defacing property. by CNB