How Cities Can Remove and Deter Graffiti and Maximize Cost Recovery, continued
Left for long enough, blight (including graffiti) may lead to community degradation and increased crime, which in turn can result in a vicious circle of more blight and crime.
To overcome this challenge, cities should utilize a comprehensive solution that not only punishes those who cause the graffiti but also allows the city to recover its costs incurred in the abatement.
Graffiti may also intimidate residents. Residents may feel less safe when they see graffiti, particularly when they associate the graffiti with gangs or criminals. Property owners may even confront taggers, resulting in assaults and other violence.
The Solution: A Comprehensive City Ordinance Based on State Law Communities benefit most from a comprehensive approach to combating graffiti. This means not just removing the graffiti itself but also recovering the costs for the cleanup, addressing the criminal behavior of the tagger and even putting pressure on parents or guardians to take more responsibility for their minors.
There are few, if any, groups supporting taggers. Unlawful graffiti is a nuisance that should be eliminated and deterred if the community is to maintain or improve its quality of life. However, in times of limited city personnel and resources, removing graffiti quickly and completely can present a significant challenge.
While some cities look to recover “restitution” (payment for the cost of graffiti removal) as part of a tagger’s
criminal conviction, others have been disappointed when the payment never arrives because the minor may be unemployed or has no other assets. Further, the obligation to pay damages to the city ends along with the minor’s probation, if any, which may be a short period. Consequently cities may wish to control their own cost recovery. State law provides the authority for this approach by statute, declaring graffiti a nuisance and allowing cities to impose the “expenses” of graffiti abatement on the tagger and, if a minor, on both the minor and parents or guardians. Expenses include, but are not limited to: • Cleanup costs incurred by the city; • Attorneys’ fees spent on the graffiti abatement, including any court action to recover the expenses; • Court costs; • Repair or replacement costs; and
For more than 30 years, our firm has proudly served as advisor and advocate for California’s cities in the area of labor and employment law, including:
-
Litigation Labor Relations Investigations Compliance Audits Discipline Wage and Hour Personnel Rules Retirement Public Safety Management Training
for more information, stop by booth 809 at the League’s 2013 Annual Conference, or visit www.lcwlegal.com.
CalPublicAgencyLaborEmploymentBlog.com |
• Law-enforcement costs involved in identifying and apprehending the tagger. With a properly drafted ordinance, cities can also add to the list of recoverable expenses to include other costs incurred related to the abatement.
Unlawful graffiti is a nuisance that should be eliminated and deterred if the community is to maintain or improve its quality of life.
@LCWLegal
Los Angeles | San Francisco | Fresno | San Diego
12
League of California Cities
www.cacities.org