City has plans to crack down on graffiti, posters

Last week, a report emerged that the city’s chief administrative officer (CAO) had requested a staff study on the actions of people who illegally deface city property by creating graffiti and mounting posters on poles and signs. The study is to determine the extent of the activity and suggest ways to curb it.

In discussion, the CAO indicated that he had personally noticed the activity and had received a number of complaints about it. He indicated that “I do not support random people expressing things on public property” and that the city needs to “create an awareness that it is not appropriate for the public to post personal notices on property that is not yours.”

In terms of graffiti, unauthorized spray painting or pen marking on another’s property is vandalism. It may have artistic merit but it has no artistic authority. Violations of private space undermine civility and contribute to the emotional and physical gating of communities. Tagging can mark territory and divide neighbourhoods. Graffiti artists create a cost for which they bear no responsibility. It is an activity that typically carries with it with it the cowardice of anonymity.

Fortunately, Peterborough does not have a severe graffiti problem. Most displays and tags are in relatively inaccessible or unattended locations such as alleys, bridges, railways, playgrounds and roof lines where their creators aspire to artistic permanency. The city’s approach to creating its own murals in locations with a history of graffiti is the right one, if only because the unofficial graffiti code ironically prohibits defacing another’s work. A new city awareness program to discourage the activity would have merit.

The mounting of posters on street utility poles is a more complex matter. Historically, Peterborough had a 1937 bylaw prohibiting postering on all public property on the basis of it being a safety hazard to workers, a potential traffic hazard and a visual blight. Kenneth Ramsden – a local fiddler and guitarist and infamous celebrant of Robbie Burns Day – was charged $108 twice under the Provincial Offences Act in 1988 for fastening posters to hydro poles advertising performances of his band, Reverend Ken and The Lost Followers. He challenged the city’s bylaw, arguing that it was unconstitutional because it was inconsistent with the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He won. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1993 that a utility pole was a public place historically used for communication such as postering and that the city’s absolute ban was an unjustifiable violation of freedom of expression.

Ramsden’s victory was preceded by that of the late artist Bob Fink who successfully took on the City of Saskatoon in 1986, establishing that postering on public property was protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Peterborough decision set the course for actions by dozens of cities across the country. In 1994, Peterborough changed its own bylaw to permit postering on seven street poles on George Street and 17 community bulletin boards downtown, and created new regulations on poster size, numbers, fastening materials, removal and the covering of other posters.

The staff report is to be presented this summer. As I see it, the city is best to shun any further regulations on postering because they are likely to fail judicial scrutiny. Instead, staff should continue to remove illegal posters, notifying violators and taking action against repeat offenders. Most importantly, and based on the likelihood that few people are likely to know of the 24 locations actually available for postering downtown, its best course is to create an awareness campaign that broadly promotes that useful service.