Attacking graffiti

Fayetteville eyes more aggressive response

It’s not that hard these days to find someone ready to excuse just about any sort of norm-crushing behaviors. Questions arise about just who gets to establish “norms” and, thus, who are they to tell someone else they can’t do something?

Because there’s sometimes a point to be made in all that, it can be challenging to draw a line that shall not be crossed. This is where the argument about graffiti as art can rear its colorful head.

Yes, there’s always the exceedingly rare guy or girl whose “street art” became famous and in such demand that the artist can charge five or six figures. But let’s be realistic: Graffiti is not art. It’s vandalism. And it’s destructive to the community where criminal painters deface structures they have no right to use as their canvas.

A proposal in Fayetteville to create a graffiti abatement program, suggested by City Council member Teresa Turk, recognizes the damage caused by illicit paintings by which individuals grant themselves a right to destroy or damage property that doesn’t belong to them. Its presence suggests a community has lost control of its ability to thwart illegal behaviors by individuals.

Fayetteville has too many examples of graffiti. The City Council should take action to rescue public and private walls from individuals who believe their expressions take precedence over community standards.

Doing so is a real balancing act, however. Turk’s proposed ordinance addresses graffiti via the fact-based reality that the quicker it’s removed, the more it discourages additional incidents of it. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s on a public structure or a private business: If it lingers, it’s just inviting more.

The proposal, set for its first consideration at tonight’s City Council meeting, would authorize the use of public funds for cleanup efforts on either public or private property. It sets out a right of the government to enter private property and remove or cover graffiti.

Here is where the balancing act begins.

Private property is a right, too, and any authorization for government crews to access private property is — or should be — a fair concern. This ordinance essentially represents government authorizing itself to momentarily take control of private property for a stated government purpose.

Turk seems to recognize the problem to be addressed and the challenges of making the process fair and agreeable to everyone. Well, except for those who insist on defacing property they don’t own. They don’t get a say — or at least shouldn’t.

The ordinance seeks to create a responsive reaction to visible vandalism to make sure it is removed almost as fast as it appeared. That seems an idea people who care about the community could embrace. On public property, the cleanups should be easy. It’s necessarily tricky, though, to write a policy that takes into account a property owner’s right to unwanted encroachment by the government.

The ordinance proposes that when the city is aware of graffiti on private property, it will reach out to the property owner, the owner’s agent or “any leasehold tenant” and request they sign an abatement form allowing the city to enter the property and remove the graffiti. That document will release the city’s employees from all liability or claims related to their presence on the property and the removal of the graffiti.

A point worth discussing: Is “any leasehold tenant” someone who should be able to grant the city access to property someone else owns?

Further, the ordinance would give the city authority to remove graffiti after two days if a property owner refuses to sign the city’s waiver of liability.

Turk has been clear that her intent is for the city to work collaboratively with property owners, not aggressively. Such a program in Springdale has worked fairly well, she noted.

Hopefully, the City Council’s deliberative process can ensure the interests of the community and private property owners are both protected in whatever final version is adopted.

What neither Fayetteville nor any other city needs is a permissive attitude that coddles graffiti as a form of expression in need of any protection or sanctifies it as art, that is unless a city wants to promote defacement of public and private property rather than discourage it.

If the city is going to create such a program, it must be a robust effort in terms of the city’s responsiveness. To have an anti-graffiti program that is so underfunded or underemphasized that it represents a weak response is worse than having no graffiti program at all. What residents (including those who get their kicks out of “tagging” public and private property) will hear in this debate is that the city plans to mount a serious fight to clean up the unsightly paintings. If the effect doesn’t match the promise, those prone to the proliferation of graffiti could be fueled even further by an emboldened sense of defiance. Part of the fun, we suppose, is getting away with it. Imagine how much more fun it will be if they can get away with it while the city preaches a message of no tolerance for the criminal behavior.

Turk is painting the right picture. It’s likely the City Council can put the final strokes on a policy to help Fayetteville attack these examples of vandalism.