A New Plan for Communities to Reduce the Negative Impacts of Graffiti

Unsightly and sometimes downright offensive graffiti is a problem that plagues communities from sea to shining sea. It doesn’t happen with equal frequency in all communities, but all communities share a common desire to deter the practice.

Negative Impacts Aboundr
Graffiti is often linked to gang activity and therefore is not just a sign of urban blight – it can be a sign of criminal activity. The symbols and messages are used to mark territory, flex muscles and send out threats or warnings. The scrawl ruins area property values, inhibits free use of parks and other public spaces and depresses local economies. Need it be said that it’s a tourism killer?

Cities Pay the Billr
To top matters off, cities wind up footing the bill to remove graffiti. If they try to uncover and punish perpetrators (often referred to as taggers), they usually must assume added legal costs as well. This isn’t a chump change issue, either. It’s estimated that graffiti removal costs taxpayers in excess of $12 billion.

Communities which opt to give up the fight essentially cede large swaths of real estate to criminal elements. The lingering graffiti shouts to everyone that gangs, not the law, are in charge of an area. This leads to an atmosphere of intimidation for residents and a potential multiplication of crime because the zone feels unsupervised.

More Reporting, More Restitutionr
To tackle the problem, communities need a plan not just for clean-up, but for identifying taggers and recouping costs. If citizens have a reliable way to report vandals and have confidence that law enforcement will act on the information, real progress can be made. However, reporting is just one component of the needed solution.

Taggers are often unemployed minors with no ability to offer restitution for their crime. Cities need recourse in this situation and they can have it. Carefully crafted city ordinances can transfer graffiti-related costs to the parents or guardians of minors. Cities can legally garnish wages or intercept tax returns in order to recover costs. This kind of ordinance was implemented in a southern California community and within a single year incidences of graffiti dropped by 50 percent.

Companies like Comcate are devoted to helping communities through technology. Cities must write their own ordinances, but can be provided with the technology that makes reporting criminal activity such as vandalism quick and easy. Regardless of a community’s size, graffiti is a nuisance and a spearhead for economic downturn. Now communities finally have to tools to fight back.