How Cities Can Remove and Deter Graffiti and Maximize Cost Recovery, continued from page 13
the city’s ability to impose liability and achieve cost recovery, providing an effective one-two punch to deter future violations. The abatement ordinance should therefore also provide that placing graffiti within the jurisdiction constitutes a misdemeanor, which is punishable by a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and/or six months imprisonment. The city may then prosecute a tagger for the criminal violation, potentially resulting in additional fines and probation. Future acts of graffiti during probation would increase the punishment. Juvenile taggers may also be prosecuted by the state in juvenile proceedings. The ordinance may further provide for payment of triple the expenses for the abatement if there have been at least two civil or criminal judgments against the tagger within a year. In addition, the ordinance should provide for actual recovery of the fines and expenses by attaching the costs to real property — owned by the tagger or the parents or guardians of the tagger — through a lien or special assessment. Traditional recovery methods, such as wage garnishment, attachments and personal property liens, may also be available. Finally, the city should establish an effective enforcement system for the ordinance among the various city departments, including for tracking and abating graffiti and identifying those responsible. City staff should not hesitate to enlist the help of the city attorney or special counsel to enforce the ordinance and recover the defined expenses and penalties, as even attorneys’ fees may be recoverable.
An Example of Successful Graffiti Ordinance Enforcement Diligently and properly enforced, a graffiti abatement ordinance can have a dramatic effect on deterring graffiti and restoring the local community’s sense of pride and safety. In one Orange County city, for example, graffiti cleanup costs totaled $183,000 in 2010 alone. The following year, the city enacted an ordinance containing many of the provisions recommended in this article. Throughout 2011
www.westerncity.com
and 2012, the city diligently enforced the new ordinance and brought enforcement actions against taggers and their parents, seeking recovery of all costs associated with the graffiti as well as penalties to deter future violations. In the first calendar year alone, graffiti removal costs in the city were reduced by roughly half. The city also made a point of targeting the more prolific taggers, who had caused tens of thousands of dollars of damage throughout the community. Other cities may achieve similar or even better results, but they must first enact the appropriate ordinance and enforce it consistently. This action will send the message to taggers and their parents that the community will no longer tolerate such conduct, and they will be held responsible for the costs and penalized accordingly.
Conclusion While many cities may never be completely free from graffiti, by employing the tools described here those cities can substantially reduce graffiti, pressure those causing it to change course, and recover the costs incurred for abatement. Cities may find that these actions reduce the economic and societal costs of graffiti in the community, while providing an effective deterrent for taggers and impetus for their parents or guardians. ■
Looking for Footnotes? A fully footnoted version of this article is available online at www.westerncity.com.
City officials trusted the legal guidance and multidisciplinary expertise of Kronick attorneys to help navigate their legal challenges and enhance their communities. At this year’s conference...
Jeff Massey and Aaron Laurel Infrastructure Financing: Brave New Alternatives in a Post-Development World (Thursday at 1:00 p.m.) Visit us at our booth #609
www.kmtg.com
Western City, August 2013
19