Now
Fair
71.0°
High
87°
Low
64°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Put away your spray paint

Comments 13 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY DEENA WINTER / Lincoln Journal Star

Monday, Sep 11, 2006 - 05:30:44 pm CDT

Vandals, put down your spray paint cans. Beginning Dec. 1, you’ll face a misdemeanor with a minimum $200 fine if you get caught spraying graffiti in Lincoln.

On Monday the City Council approved, by a vote of 5-2, a city ordinance that defines graffiti and makes its application a misdemeanor, with escalating minimum fines for repeat offenses.

But the law won’t just target vandals; it also contains provisions to encourage property owners to clean up graffiti in a timely manner. They would have to erase the graffiti within 15 days of receiving a notice from the city.

Story Photo
Graffiti on a city-owned building at 48th and O streets (LJS File)

Property owners could pay the city to remove the graffiti, but if no arrangements are made the city could remove it and bill the property owner. For a $50 fee, property owners can ask for extensions or waivers from a Graffiti Appeals Board.

For some council members, the ordinance couldn’t become effective soon enough.

“I think the neighborhoods are waiting for this,” Councilwoman Annette McRoy said. “I don’t want to wait one week longer before this takes effect. … so that we don’t dilly-dally around.”

She said it’s not just a problem in the center of the city; she’s seen it on vacant commercial properties all over Lincoln.

“Have spray can, will travel,” she said.

Councilmen Ken Svoboda and Councilman Jon Camp voted against the ordinance. Svoboda said he didn’t like the cleanup provision because it victimizes the victim.

Camp said he agrees with the intent of the law, but doesn’t believe legislation is necessary to get property owners to clean up. He also heard from several homeowners who were worried about cleanup costs.

The sponsor of the legislation, Councilwoman Patte Newman, said the intent of the cleanup provision is not to victimize the property owner again, but to have a tool if they refuse to do anything about the graffiti even after being offered assistance.

Volunteer Partners is coordinating a network of volunteers to help people who need help cleaning up the graffiti, Newman said.

The council was in no mood for lenience, rejecting a proposal to allow the mayor to extend the property owners’ cleanup deadlines during harsh winter weather, for example.

“Graffiti is an element that invades into our town and it begats other things that we don’t want to have happen,” Councilman Dan Marvin said.

Reach Deena Winter at 473-2642 or dwinter@journalstar.com.

Graffiti ordinance

The ordinance makes the application of graffiti a misdemeanor with a mandatory minimum $200 fine for the first offense, $250 for the second offense and $300 for three or more convictions. The maximum penalty would be $500 and six months in jail.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Bill wrote on September 12, 2006 6:35 am:
" This is nothing but pure and lazy legislation. We already have laws in place for the police to use if they EVER catch anyone spray painting; it is call Criminal Mischief. The only reason for this ordinance is to make property owner cover up paint. And then you fine them if they cannot afford to repaint their garage or they don't feel inclined to do so. If you drive down K Street at about 21st, there is what I considered graffiti on the south side of alley that says something about salvation. I consider that graffiti.....Does that go? Are there going to be inspectors going around to see if the paint job to cover graffiti meets community standards? If I just slap black paint over graffiti on my white garage am I going to be fined? Maybe we can get an ordinance to dictate specific colors of paint allowed on houses. I am much more offended by some of the yellow, purple, red, blue, or combinations thereof on some of the houses in the neighborhood. This is ridiculous and an ordinance that is directed at punishing the property owners who have already been victimized. When was the last time you heard, let alone saw the police take an interest in tracking down the street artists? One last question; is the Mayor getting the citation for all of the graffiti on the city underpasses, overpasses, retaining walls, and storm outlets? "
ed wrote on September 12, 2006 7:17 am:
" Hey Bill criminal mischief is not Art these are not street artists. People who can afford to own a home can and should be made to keep it up to city standards when it comes to graffiti. Keep the graffiti off the buildings and the tagging will soon move on to other places. "
tc wrote on September 12, 2006 9:35 am:
" keeping the grafitti cleaned up is really no different than home-owners' responsibility to keep sidewalks clean and in good shape and to keep their lawns mowed, etc. "
ET wrote on September 12, 2006 10:04 am:
" Uh, tc - everyone knows, expects, and schedules the cleaning of sidewalks and mowing lawns. You know that stuff will need done. Waking up one morning and finding grafitti on your property is not expected, and for the great majority of people, not something you can just run out to clean up, (most people are very busy with jobs, kids, etc....) But it's easy to just hand down your 'easy' advice, isn't it? This is no different than getting your car window broken out and then being told by your insurance company to get it fixed out of pocket or face a fine from the insurance company. Our city council needs to put the crack pipe down. Find the OFFENDERS, and make THEM clean it up. You don't fine the the victims just because you can't/won't find the offenders. "
Mike wrote on September 12, 2006 10:41 am:
" Keeping the sidewalk cleaned and the lawn mowed are safety issues for walkers using the public right-of-way. Cleaning "graffiti" is an eyesore issue that is subject to standards of personal taste. Who is the judge of personal taste and how do you define graffiti in a way that does not impinge on homeowners rights to paint and decorate their homes as they see fit? "
Another Mike wrote on September 12, 2006 11:30 am:
" Victimize the victims, and get more money for the city till. More business as usual for the City of Lincoln. I wonder if city property is exempt from the ordinance... "
dk wrote on September 12, 2006 12:26 pm:
" Victimizing victims twice? I am really tired of hearing that argument. Right now, people who cannot cover the graffiti because of age, disability, or income level have no options, except relying on neighbors or families to help them, (which many are reluctant to ask) or paying out of their own pocket, (sometimes over and over) which many cannot afford. THAT'S what I call being victimized twice. Under the new ordinance, they will now have the option to call Volunteer Partners to ask for assistance, which volunteers and businesses are already lining up to get involved to help! It may help to read the ordinance to get all the facts straight before passing judgement. Also, I'd really like to hear from a homeowner who decorates his own house/garage with graffiti or gang signs as a statement of "personal taste." "
Chef wrote on September 12, 2006 12:50 pm:
" tc as you know there has been a tenfold increase in news reports about graffiti. But no news reports about any arrests made or about methods being used to track down the taggers despite the increases. This summer's reports are an indicator of recruitment - more taggers, and more targets. The "broken window" theory also rippled to more public and private property damage, shoplifiting, the display of intoxicants in public parks and gang affiliation behaviors. This is the second summer of reports of a growing problem. LPD needs a criminologist. What will this garner next summer? "
Hmmm...... wrote on September 12, 2006 3:59 pm:
" I tend to agree with Svoboda who said he didn’t like the cleanup provision because it victimizes the victim. I also agree with the homeowners who are worried about the cleanup costs. "Councilwoman Patte Newman, said the intent of the cleanup provision is not to victimize the property owner again, but to have a tool if they refuse to do anything about the graffiti even after being offered assistance." How does this not victimize the property owner. They didn't spray paint the graffiti, but if they don't clean it up they will be charged to have it done. Or better yet they can pay someone to have it done. Some homeowners live on fixed income. Somehow I don't show how that is fair. I have a question. What about some people who have painted the flag on their garages will that have to go also? Also "The ordinance makes the application of graffiti a misdemeanor with a mandatory minimum $200 fine for the first offense, $250 for the second offense and $300 for three or more convictions. The maximum penalty would be $500 and six months in jail." are these costs for the homeowner or it they acutally catch the person that does it? "
george wrote on September 12, 2006 4:48 pm:
" i agree that until we read what is actually in the ordinance it may be premature to judge. i mean, i consider the large red 'N' on my neighbor's garage to be graffiti and offensive to my personal tastes. can I call it in and bust him? or is there some clear cut determine what is or isn't graffiti so that thise ordinance against victims can be fairly enforced. "
ed wrote on September 12, 2006 5:54 pm:
" To all who believe the homeowner is not the one who should take responsibility in cleaning up the graffiti then you must be the ones who want to pay more in taxes. Keep the government out of this and be responsible for your property. Keep our city clean. "
Bill wrote on September 12, 2006 8:57 pm:
" Hey Ed....who decides the city standards? Some people on fixed income cannot afford the cost to repaint. And expecting volunteer to come to the rescue may seem fine now, but how long will that stay in place. The citizen of Lincoln voted YEARS ago for the City to be responsible for sidewalk repair. They were ordering 100's of thousands of dollars in sidewalk repairs on an annual basis. Once it became the responsibility of Public Works to make these repairs, the City Council decided not to fund the repairs. All of a sudden the required repair changed from 1 inch deviation to 2 inch. The whole direction of my original comments; emphasis of this ordinance is directly targeting property owners, there is no emphasis made or mentioned on what the police are doing to stop this 'vandalism'. Also, tell me how keeping the graffiti off the walls in the underpass at 27th/Capitol Parkway has made it go away. Oh, that's right, it hasn't. Does Public Works Director have to pay the fines for not removing the grafitti from the overpasses, signs, and storm outlets in the city? "
Bill wrote on September 12, 2006 9:01 pm:
" And sidewalk chalking actually fits the definition of graffiti in the ordinance? The neighbors grandkids are going to be in for a rude awakening. "

Ads by Yahoo!