Ward 10 Convention

Precinct 10-5 adopted the following resolution in March and referred it to the Ward 10 Convention, which approved it Saturday, 18 April 2009.

- - -
Resolved:
We urge the City Council to support the efforts of Senator Linda Berglin to eradicate graffiti in Minneapolis.
- - -

Senator Berglin knows from experience that parents hold a key to solving the graffiti problem. That's why she introduced Senate File 194.[1] The bill follows the road map crafted by the U.S. Supreme Court - civil proceeding, respect for liberty, high standard of proof, simplified procedure, and due regard for legitimate concerns of the state.[2] The Minnesota Supreme Court concurred.[3]

According to the Mayor, graffiti is a "tough issue." What he should say is, the menace is worse today than when he took office eight years ago. Sadly, it "costs the city and its property owners $2.5 million annually",[4] accomplishing nothing.

To a thinking people, S.F. 194 is a no-brainer: punish vandals, not victims or taxpayers. The General Membership of the Lyndale Neighborhood Association approved unanimously Senator Berglin's efforts to eradicate graffiti in Minneapolis years ago (23 April 2007). Nevertheless, requests for a public hearing to discuss the bill consistently fall on deaf ears. Why? The grupthink of the majority party defies the U.S. Supreme Court (see poll results).

The minority party, harbors an open mind (see poll results), a willingness to explore decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mayor R.T. Rybak attended the Ward 10 Convention. He offered to cooperate with the minority party in its request for a public hearing. Meeting jointly with the Mayor and City Attorney is a promised first step. Letting legal scholars debate arguments for and against S.F. 194 (see pro/con matrix) at a public hearing is an obvious second step.

S.F. 194 allows a police investigator who is not an eye-witness to present "credible testimony" to identify in an informal hearing who is responsible for the graffiti. Synergy, the element missing from current City policy, is what draws parents into the graffiti solution.

The Graffiti Task Force,
Ward 10, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

- - - - -
[1] Originally S.F. 587 (session 2007). Objections of the City Attorney were addressed and incorporated by Senate Counsel into S.F. 3760 (session 2008), which was re-introduced as S.F. 194 (session 2009-2010).
[2] Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 431, 60 L.Ed.2d 323, 995 S.Ct. 1805 (1970)
[3] State v. Alpine Air products, 500 N.W.2d 788, 790 (Minn. 1993)
[4] Tom Horgen. "Leaving their mark across the metro," Star Tribune, 14 Oct. 2006, p. A8

A self-inflicted wound

The graffiti menace in Minneapolis is self-inflicted. For decades, hard data has proven that the City's policy of charging ALL graffiti offenses as a "crime" is a failure. The city sees "more than 175,000 new tags, or graffiti markings, every year."[1] Not just this year, or last, but for several decades. Offenses referred to the City Attorney for prosecution "are just a very small percentage of the total number of incidents of graffiti."[2]

The U.S. Supreme Court offers a solution.[3] Prosecute SOME graffiti offenses in a civil proceeding. Hence, if the charge is not a crime, the rules of proof may be simplified. The Minnesota Supreme Court concurs.[4]

Senator Linda Berglin introduced a bill to eradicate graffiti in Minneaolis.[5] The bill follows the road map crafted by the U.S. Supreme Court - civil proceeding, respect for liberty, high standard of proof, simplified procedure, and due regard for legitimate concerns of the state. It allows a police investigator who is not an eye-witness to present "credible testimony" to identify in an informal hearing who is responsible for the graffiti.

The General Membership of Lyndale Neighborhood Association (LNA) endorsed unanimously Senator Berglin's efforts to eradicate graffiti in Minneapolis. Nevertheless, the Mayor and Council defy the U.S. Supreme Court. Ditto for House DFLers who represent the Lyndale neighborhood, ignoring grass-roots support for Senator Berglin's graffiti bill.

Why do elected officials cling to a policy that is a proven failure over several decades? When costs to the taxpayers exceed $2.5+ million yearly?[6] When the City and land owners suffer hard financial times? When crime is increasing and streets remain in disrepair?

Elected officials offer no explanation. Instead, the City Attorney is instructed to enforce a policy that allows vandals to inflict damage to property at will. Worse, neighborhood executives, and city employees posing as neighborhood leaders, are offered hush money to distract attention away from a problem that worsens each day. Why?

Senator Berglin's graffiti bill is a no-brainer: Punish vandals, not victims or taxpayers. Making graffiti an expensive habit is the only language that vandals understand.

The Graffiti Task Force
of the Lyndale neighborhood
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

- - - - -
[1.] Sara Schweid. "Time allowed for graffiti cleanup halved," Minnesota Daily, 24 May 2006, p. 10
[2.] Susan L. Segal, City Attorney. Email to Mayor et al., 11 march 2009.
[3.] Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 431, 60 L.Ed.2d 323, 995 S.Ct. 1805 (1979)
[4.] State v. Alpine Air products, 500 N.W.2d 788, 790 (Minn. 1993)
[5.] Originally S.F. 587 (session 2007). Objections of the City Attorney were addressed and incorporated by Senate Counsel into S.F. 3760 (session 2008), which was re-introduced as S.F. 194 (session 2009-2010).
[6.] Tom Horgen. "Leaving their mark across the metro," Star Tribune, 14 Oct. 2006, p. A8

Hush Money

All tools in the arsenal have an impact on the graffiti problem. In the end, though, making graffiti an expensive habit is the only language that vandals understand.

Prosecutions for graffiti are rare. The City Attorney admits it. A policy decision by the Mayor and Council ensures it. Ergo, graffiti vandals remain outside the reach of the law. Out of site, out of mind.

The General Membership of Lyndale Neighborhood Association endorsed unanimously Senator Linda Berglin's efforts to eradicate graffiti in Minneapolis. Her bill is supported by both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Minnesota Supreme Court. It allows a police investigator who is not an eye-witness to present "credible testimony" to identify in an informal hearing who is responsible for the graffiti.

Rather than making graffiti vandals accept consequences for bad behavior, City Hall harasses victims. Now it also proposes to punish the taxpayers. An email bragged recently, "Micro grants of up to $10,000 per project are being made available to communities and community-based organizations that target graffiti in innovative ways."

Are "Micro-Grants" free help? Or are they hush money?

HINT: How to make vandals accept consequences for bad behavior is not offered as an agenda item. Not by the Mayor or City Council, not by the City Attorney, not by those who represent the Lyndale neighborhood (Frank Hornstein and Jeff Hayden), and not by the "Innovative community microgrants" program.

In 2006, the Star Tribune reported, "The cleanup costs the city and its property owners $2.5 million annually." Costs increase annually, yet the free-ride policy for vandals merits support with hush money. Why?

It's time for neighborhood executives to do the bidding of the membership. Insist that elected leaders support Senator Berglin's graffiti bill. It's a no-brainer: Punish vandals, not victims or taxpayers.

The Graffiti Task Force
of the Lyndale neighborhood
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

Grass-roots support

Landowners in the 10th ward are working with Senator Linda Berglin to amend Minnesota's graffiti statute. The General Membership of Lyndale Neighborhood Association endorsed unanimously Senator Berglin's efforts to eradicate graffiti in Minneapolis.

Despite grass-roots support, those who represent the Lyndale neighborhood - Jeff Hayden and Frank Hornstein - refuse to introduce Senator Berglin's graffiti bill into the House. Their refusal to support the Lyndale neighborhood ensures that Senator Berglin's graffiti bill is denied a public hearing. The will of the voters is silenced while an election is in play.

Senator Berglin's graffiti bill will force vandals to accept consequences for bad behavior. The penalty is a fine, much like a parking ticket. However, court records are open to the public. Civil lawsuits would be made much simpler for victims who choose to sue. Triple damages and attoney fees are allowed by law. The sting will very quickly make graffiti an expensive habit.

The City Attorney rarely prosecutes a graffiti offense. The reason is simple. The City Attorney insists that ALL graffit offenses must be charged as a crime. Problem is, all prosecutions for a crime include a threat of incarceration. When incarceration is threatened, the U.S. Constitution requires an eye witness to convict. That makes graffiti a game of Hide-n-Seek for which the Office of City Attorney is ill equipped.

Senator Berglin's bill levels the playing field. It removes the threat of incarceration. A police investigator who is not an eye witness may then present "credible testimony" to identify in an informal hearing who is responsible for the graffiti. Investigative police officers have access to search warrants and snitch money. They would use the same tools that have enabled the courts to convict criminals of all flavors since the founding of the democracy.

The premise underlying Senator Berglin's graffiti bill is approved by both the U.S. Supreme Court and Minnesota Supreme Court. Making graffiti an expensive habit is the only way to solve the problem.

The Graffiti Task Force
of the Lyndale neighborhood
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

The sky is falling

A proposal to improve the criminal justice system is pending in the Minnesota legislature. It would reduce panalties for some crimes. Mostly, it's an attempt to save costs and to reduce the numbers of people held in jail or supervised by probation staff. For example, some offenses which are currently charged as a misdemeanor crime would be reduced to a petty misdemeanor, which is not a crime. The penalty would be a fine, much like a parking ticket.

City Hall is alarmed. Neighborhoods, and anyone who will listen, are told that "The Mayor and City Council members are very concerned about the impact of this proposal." They argue that, because the bill changes some mandatory minimums for repeat offenders, neighborhood should fear for their safety.

Truth is, some "crimes" should be charged as an petty misdemeanor. Graffiti is a good example.

The City Attorney told the Mayor and Council recently, "We know that the number of cases presented to our Office ... are just a very small percentage of the total number of incidents of graffiti." In plain language, it's an admission that prosecutions for graffiti offenses are rare. The question is, why?

The answer is simple, obvious and expensive. The City Attorney insists that ALL graffiti offenses must be charged as a crime. Such a policy is not pre- ordained by the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, that policy is approved by the Mayor and Council. It's a costly policy, accomplishing nothing.

In 2006, the Minnesota Daily reported, "Graffiti is a growing problem in Minneapolis, according to Sgt. Donna Olson, a graffiti investigator with the Minneapolis Police Department, who said the city sees more than 175,000 new tags, or graffiti markings, every year." Later that year, the Star Tribune reported, "The cleanup costs the city and its property owners $2.5 million annually." Costs increase annually, yet the policy prevails. Why?

All crimes threaten incarceration. Unfortunately, when incarceration is threatened (i.e., loss of liberty), the U.S. Constitution requires an eye witness to convict. That makes graffiti a game of Hide-n-Seek for which the Office of City Attorney is ill equipped.

A better solution is to charge SOME graffiti offenses as a petty misdemeanor. That removes the threat of incarceration. A police investigator who is not an eye witness may then present "credible testimony" to identify in an informal hearing who is responsible for the graffiti. Investigative police officers have access to search warrants and snitch money. They would use the same tools that have enabled courts to convict criminals of all flavors since the founding of the democracy.

Senator Linda Berglin introduced a bill to amend Minnesota's graffiti statute. It would allow SOME graffiti offenses to be charged as a petty misdemeanor. The premise underlying Senator Berglin's graffiti bill is approved by both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The City Attorney opposes Senator Berglin's graffiti bill. Opposition ensures that the bill will receive no public hearing. What was the reason given to the Mayor and Council? "Probation supervision is a valuable tool in that it enables monitoring of the terms of a criminal sentence, and it is not available for petty offenders."

That sounds like a full-employment gambit for lawyers. Worse, it proves that the graffiti menace in Minneapolis is self-inflicted -- by the very ones who claim to be "very concerned about the impact of this proposal."

The Graffiti Task Force
of the Lyndale neighborhood
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA