Local Government Watch – San Marcos
COMMENTARY by LAMAR W. HANKINS
There are no simple, one-shot solutions to graffiti, according to locales that are dealing with it successfully. Some American cities are learning from their counterparts in Australia and New Zealand that have developed comprehensive approaches to eliminate graffiti. Many of the ideas suggested in this column come from the City of Casey in Australia.
The City of San Marcos Parks and Recreation Department and the Beautification Commission have focused on developing an ordinance that would prohibit possession of implements–such as aerosol paint cans and markers–that can be used for creating graffiti near common locations where graffiti is found, requiring graffiti to be removed by the graffiti artist, and punishing parents for repeated graffiti convictions by their children.
Cities in other places have not focused their efforts so narrowly, but have developed a comprehensive range of measures with community-wide support that include:
The comprehensive, community-wide graffiti abatement program in the City of Casey, which includes most of the above elements, has been successful in significantly reducing graffiti in the city during the last seven years since it was created, according to the city. Similar ideas are being implemented in other cities in Australia and New Zealand, and in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Santa Rosa, California, as well as other locations in the US. An essential key to the success of such programs is that they involve the entire community working cooperatively to solve the problem. The solutions aren’t focused on creating new regulations, though some may be useful.
In Texas, it is already illegal for a minor to possess graffiti markers and aerosol paint containers absent an approved purpose, and it is illegal for adults to possess such implements in public places or on private property without the consent of the owner. San Marcos does not need an ordinance echoing the current state law. It will add nothing of value to the need to abate graffiti. More important, there is little evidence that these laws have advanced us toward eliminating graffiti vandalism.
If graffiti is a significant problem that needs further action by the city council, the Parks and Recreation Department and Beautification Committee would do well to reconsider its work in this area and enlarge its efforts to eliminate graffiti by developing a comprehensive program that includes the range of elements identified above, working with many segments of the community. Anything less is unlikely to be effective. Considering the history of graffiti abatement, relying solely on a law enforcement solution will be insufficient.
It is unclear that many people in San Marcos see graffiti as a problem that needs a solution. If they do support action to eliminate graffiti, the new, minimalist legislation under consideration will not do so. Before we spend more taxpayer money on trying to abate graffiti, perhaps we should find out first if San Marcos residents believe it is a problem in need of a solution. If we do have such agreement, we must have community-wide involvement to succeed. Without broad community support for an anti-graffiti program, there is little chance for success.
LAMAR W. HANKINS is a former San Marcos city attorney. His “Freethought San Marcos” column runs on Mondays. His “Local Government Watch” column runs on occassional Thursdays.
© Local Government Watch–San Marcos, Lamar W. HankinsEmail | Print
There is a simple solution to the graffiti problem, and it need not be a burden on the taxpayers. The solution is condoned by the U.S. Supreme Court (1970).
To solve the graffiti problem, the legislature must allow SOME graffiti acts to be treated not as a crime but as a civil case, much like a parking ticket.
Equal justice for graffiti vandals is the first step.