City draws up plan to clean up graffiti
Proposal focuses on private property
FAYETTEVILLE — The Fayetteville City Council on Tuesday will consider a measure to adopt a graffiti abatement program allowing public employees to clean up private property.
The program is similar to one in Springdale.
Council Member Teresa Turk sponsored the measure, saying the city needs some kind of mechanism to remove graffiti from private property. She said she spends a lot of time bicycling on the trails and often sees graffiti on private property that remains for an extended period.
Turk said she asked city staff about what could be done and learned the city only paints over or removes graffiti within the public right of way. She found Springdale’s graffiti abatement program and asked the Fayetteville city attorney’s office to draft a similar measure.
Graffiti, as defined by Fayetteville city code, is “any inscription, word, figure, design, symbol or insignia which is marked, etched, scratched, drawn, painted or otherwise affixed to or placed upon public or private property located within the city to the extent that the same is not approved by the owner.”
The trigger for the city
to potentially enter private property is whether the property owner does not want the graffiti, Turk said. If the art is something the property owner did themselves or asked for or is OK with, then the city would not intervene, she said.
A provision of the proposed measure would enable the city to enter a property and remove or paint over graffiti if city staff cannot reach the property owner after two days. Springdale has a similar policy, although it waits one day after trying to contact the property owner before taking corrective action.
City Attorney Kit Williams said he had some concern with that aspect of the proposal. If graffiti is defined as markings the property owner does not want, then city staff wouldn’t know whether the graffiti is unwanted unless they speak to the property owner, he said.
Most times it’s pretty obvious whether something is graffiti, said Ernest Cate, Springdale’s city attorney.
“I don’t think we have ever run into an issue where we weren’t sure it was graffiti, but if we did, we would certainly err on the side of caution and be respectful of private property rights,” he said.
Springdale started its graffiti abatement program in 2010 and has tweaked it over the years. In 2017, the City Council adopted a provision enabling city staff to enter private property and take action immediately, without property owner consent, if the graffiti is offensive or obscene. The city can take immediate action after “thorough documentation,” the ordinance says. Fayetteville’s proposed ordinance has the same language.
Fayetteville Mayor Lioneld Jordan said he had some concern about city staff entering private property for graffiti abatement without the owner’s consent.
“Everything else is logistics — how much is it going to cost, how much staff are we going to put on it,” he said. “It’s something I can work out.”
The city uses park staff to remove graffiti from places within the public right of way. This year there have been 37 work orders for staff to remove graffiti from a park or trail, consisting of 219 labor hours with a cost to the city of $5,459, according to Byron Humphry, park maintenance superintendent.
Graffiti on a concrete wall can be painted over, Humphry said. If it’s on another surface like a sidewalk, staff will use graffiti remover or a pressure washer, he said. Park staff reports the instances of graffiti to police, especially recurring ones, Humphry said.
The city’s police and code compliance departments take complaints of graffiti on public or private property, but the city only remedies graffiti within the public right of way.
Fayetteville police received an average of about 28 complaints from residents about graffiti on private or public property each year from 2016 to 2019, according to figures from the department. In 2020, there were 52 complaints about graffiti. Last year there were 32. So far this year there have been five.
The city’s code compliance division also fields complaints from residents about graffiti, although it’s usually less than a handful a year, said Billy Bryant, senior compliance officer. When code compliance receives a graffiti complaint, compliance officers inspect the property. Once documented, the property owner receives a notice of code violation. The property owner has 30 days to remove or paint over the graffiti. If the graffiti is still there after 30 days, then the matter is sent to the city prosecutor’s office. No one with code compliance removes or paints over the graffiti, he said.
If police receive a graffiti complaint, patrol officers take a report, said Sgt. Anthony Murphy with the Police Department. The report is sent to investigators, who contact the property owner. Police document graffiti, but typically do not clean it up, and it’s up to the property owner to remedy, he said.
ART VS. NUISANCE
What graffiti can be considered as art or a nuisance is a subject local policymakers and art institutions have debated for years. The legal framework defines graffiti as markings unwanted by the property owner, but what can be considered a public nuisance or offensive is often in the eye of the beholder, according to a 2019 blog post from the Preservation Leadership Forum of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a national nonprofit organization in Washington.
For instance, well-known graffiti artists such as Banksy or Jean-Michel Basquiat got their starts painting unsanctioned graffiti. The works are considered art now, worthy of preservation, but that wasn’t always the case, according to the blog.
Olivia Trimble, a Fayetteville artist, took it upon herself to paint over hate speech with positive messaging starting in 2016, launching a “Repaint Hate” campaign on social media. Trimble worked with property owners to paint over hate speech sprayed on the old City Hospital building that used to sit south of the Fayetteville Public Library, the former Jefferson School building in south Fayetteville and a building on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.
Trimble recently led a group of University of Arkansas graphic design students to paint a mural bearing the phrase, “I exist in the future” with unique typography underneath the Lafayette Street bridge next to Frisco Trail. The spot served as a common place for graffiti.
Covering graffiti with white primer in common spaces usually just encourages more graffiti by providing a blank canvas, Trimble said. The city has an opportunity to hone local artists’ skills in places prone to graffiti, she said.
Trimble also suggested the city look into providing sanctioned spaces for graffiti. Austin, Texas, has public places that provide an outlet for graffiti artists, such as its Hope Outdoor Gallery on Castle Hill, according to the Austin Chronicle.
The program also could help lower-income residents who are the victims of property damage and may not have the time, means or money to paint over or remove graffiti from their homes, Turk said.
Turk is open to changes to the proposed measure. She said her preference is to have the city contact any property owner before taking corrective action.
“I’m willing to listen and to try to make this work for everybody,” she said. “I just think we need to be able to have some ability to go in there and take corrective action. I don’t want it to be too intrusive for the property owner.”