Quick abatement

In Minneapolis, MN, quick abatement does not work. Truth is, it's an illusion. Landowners are not glad, and the cost of removal is not minimal.

The City tracked 12,531 graffiti crimes in 2009, an increase over 2008. The City Attorney charged only 43 as a crime, a decrease from 2008. All others went unpunished. City staff were instructed to harass landowners and force them to incur $6.9 million to clean up the mess quickly.

Quick abatement gives citizens the illusion of free money. Unfortunately, the price of free always increases. Like weeds, both the neighborhoods and the landowners must endure the same do-do, year after year.

A tax-free solution does exist. It offers a police investigator a tool when there is no eye-witness. A simple change in the law would allow a peace officer to qualify as an expert to offer testimony that identifies who is responsible for the graffiti. Keep in mind that a street cop would not qualify. The expert must be a higher-up who is "authorized to approve the charge". The "charge" would be a non-criminal citation, which is similar to a parking ticket.

The Minneapolis Council is proud of its "Graffiti Gone" strategy, which allows vandals who play Hide-n-Seek to beat the rap! That explains why it refuses to let police identify unseen graffiti vandals in court.

Certainty of punishment is its own deterrent. The only solution to the graffiti menace is to decriminalize some graffiti acts. That will enable a trained investigator, who is a step or two above the street cop, to identify the unseen graffiti vandal in an informal hearing.

Solving the graffiti problem

The Office of City Attorney has for decades insisted that the U.S. Constitution hinders government efforts to make graffiti vandals account for bad behavior. That explains why City staff tracked 11,500 graffiti crimes during 2008, yet the Office of City Attorney prosecuted only 50. Yes, roughly 4/10 of 1% !!!

Problem is, the U.S. Supreme Court disavowed excuses in 1979 [page 2]. A basic principle of Constitutional law guarantees to government the power to maintain order. The Minnesota Supreme Court concurred in 1993.

The Mayor insists that imposing consequences on graffiti vandals is a "tough issue". Rather than solve the problem, City Hall is advised to use scarce taxpayer dollars to paint over the mischief, ensuring that vandals won't be identified in court.

To curb wasteful spending, the Governor cut state aide to Minneapolis. That put City Hall in a very expensive dilemma. Unrelenting, the council continues to insist that taxpayers spend millions of scarce dollars each year needlessly, cleaning the same do-do repeatedly.

A simple solution

The profile of taggers is 18 to 25, white, male, and from the suburbs. A simple solution for bad behavior does exist. The Berglin graffiti bill allows some graffiti acts to be treated not as a crime but as a civil offense, much like a parking ticket. Such acts are then processed in an informal hearing. Kids appear in Juvenile Court with a parent, where records are never public. Adults appear in a civil proceeding, where records are public. Either way, Restorative Justice programs are an option.

Supporters

The Berglin graffiti bill arose from the Lyndale Neighborhood Association and was approved by its general membership (23 April 2007). It is condoned by both the U.S. Supreme Court (1970) and the Minnesota Supreme Court (1993). Public debate is recommended by the DFL Ward 10 Convention (16 March 2009).

Questions

- Should we issue citations to graffiti vandals and identify them in court? or

- Should we waste another 60 years, spending millions of scarce taxpayer dollars needlessly each year, painting over the graffiti mischief solely to pamper the vandals with immunity?

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

Wasting taxpayer dollars

The Governor insists that cities waste money needlessly. That is certainly true in Minneapolis. Graffiti is but one example.

According to the City of Minneapolis website (Graffiti Cleanup page), residents endured 8,428 incidents of graffiti in 2007. That number increased 69% in 2008, to 14,276.

The City Attorney admits that prosecution for graffiti crimes is rare. "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."[1] Why? City policy makes graffiti vandalism a game of Hide-n-Seek, for which the City Attorney is ill equipped. Out of sight, out of mind.

Most vandals know how to play the game, and how to remain outside the reach of the law. With no accountability for bad behavior, graffiti multiplies. Proof is in the numbers.

Graffiti cleanup "costs the city and its property owners $2.5 million annually."[2] Those are taxpayer dollars, i.e., total cost to the taxpayers. Policies that rely solely on taxpayer dollars to paint over vandalism do not solve the problem. Quite the contrary, such policies enable bad behavior. What's needed is a rule of law that makes vandals account for harm done.

A simple solution does exist. Allow some graffiti acts to be treated not as a crime but as an offense, much like a parking ticket. Then, process those acts in an informal hearing. Kids appear in Juvenile Courts with a parent, where records are never public. Adults appear in a civil proceeding, where records are public. Either way, Restorative Justice programs are an option.

Current policies on graffiti merely prove the Governor's point. A simple change in City policy can decrease graffiti incidents by 80%, within only a few years. A good starting point, then, in the budget battle with the Governor is to simply stop pampering vandals.

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

[1] Susan L. Segal, Minneapolis City Attorney. Email to Mayor and Council, 11 March 2009

[2] Tom Horgen. "Leaving their mark across the metro," Star Tribune, 14 Oct. 2006, p. A8

A tough decision?

In a letter to Mayor R.T. Rybak, we pointed out that prosecution for graffiti crimes is rare. That fact is confirmed by the City Attorney (see p. 2) . The reason is obvious. Graffiti is a game of Hide-n-Seek. Most vandals know how to play the game, and how to remain outside the reach of the law.

With no accountability for bad behavior, graffiti multiplies. Using tax dollars to paint over the problem merely enables bad behavior. A simple solution to the problem does exist. It harnesses creative powers of parents.

To solve the graffiti problem, the Council must allow some graffiti acts to be treated not as a crime but as an offense, much like a parking ticket. Then, process those acts in an informal hearing. Kids appear in Juvenile Courts with a parent, where records are never public. Adults appear in a civil proceeding, where records are public. Either way, Restorative Justice programs are an option.

We asked the Mayor to support an open dialogue on ways to draw parents into the graffiti solution. Surely, residents should be allowed to discuss graffiti policies openly, in public testimony, and to offer lawful alternatives.

The Mayor did not respond. Previously, he called graffiti "a tough issue."

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

Letting neighborhoods rot

What follows is a response from the Cooper neighborhood to our request for a public hearing. It proves our point that only a change in City policy will solve the graffiti menace.

- - Reply - -
The Longfellow Community Council has taken the anti-graffiti issue into its own hands and with exemplary results. Contact the Anti Graffiti Coordinator, [...] for details on how it's handled.
- - - - - - - -

Mostly, the response is wishful thinking. According to the Coordinator, the program focuses on murals (funded by tax dollars) but only in business areas, while volunteers paint over the handiwork of vandals elsewhere. There is hope that beauty will encourage friends to snitch on friends.

Question: Why should each neighborhood take "the anti-graffiti issue into its own hands"? Answer: Because graffiti is a game of Hide-n-Seek. Most vandals know how to remain outside the reach of the law. With no accountability for bad behavior, graffiti multiplies. Problem is, City policy guarantees that prosecution for graffiti vandalism is rare. So, neighborhoods must fend for themselves.

The solution is simple: Allow some graffiti acts to be treated not as a crime but as an offense, much like a parking ticket. Then, make those vandals account for bad behavior in an informal hearing. Kids appear in Juvenile Court with a parent, and records are never public. Adults appear in a civil proceeding, where records are public. Either way, Restorative Justice programs are an option.

Cop haters argue that immunity for graffiti vandals is justified because police are prone to harass innocent kids. Truth is quite the reverse. A judge - not a cop - decides guilt, by demanding a high standard of proof from the cops. Keep in mind, no one is above the law.

South Minneapolis is a cesspool of graffiti. Elected officials and wannabes refuse to even consider an open dialogue on how to draw parents into the graffiti solution.

Let neighborhoods rot? Is that our destiny?

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

Request for a public hearing

What follows is the email sent 26 May 2009, with copies to the Mayor, Council Members and all candidates:

- - - - - -

Council Member Don Samuels, Chair
Committee on Public Safety and Regulatory Services

Please consider this a request for a public hearing to explore ways to eradicate graffiti in Minneapolis.

City policy now requires ALL graffiti offenses to be prosecuted as a crime. Such a policy ensures that graffiti remains a game of Hide-n-Seek, for which the City Attorney is ill equipped. Not surprising, according to the City Attorney, prosecution for graffiti "crimes" is rare. Hence, most graffiti vandals are free to operate outside the reach of the law.

Both the U.S. Supreme Court (1979) and the Minnesota Supreme Court (1993) allow rules of evidence to be simplified if graffiti tags are treated not as a "crime" but as a civil offense. In such a case, hearings may be less formal, much like resolving a parking ticket or deciding a civil matter in conciliation court. Think in terms of a civil proceeding, respect for liberty, high standard of proof, simplified procedure and due regard for legitimate concerns of the state.

Solving the graffiti menace requires a change in City policy. The end result would involve a transfer of enforcement for SOME graffiti offenses from the City Attorney to the Chief of Police. Such a change in policy merits a public discussion before your committee. Residents need a forum to discuss current graffiti policies openly, in public testimony, and to offer lawful alternatives.

I would like to meet with you to explain in greater detail why an open dialogue on how to solve the graffiti problem would serve the best interests of the City.

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

Minneapolis City Convention

On 16 May 2009, Minneapolis held it 2009 Citywide Convention. The resolution approved by the Ward 10 Convention was moved and seconded.

Arguments in favor stressed how the resolution attempts to draw parents into the graffiti solution. It applies mostly to minor graffiti offenses and does not take sides on pending legislation.

According to the City Attorney, prosecution for graffiti crimes is rare [see p. 2]. That's because City policy allows most graffiti vandals to remain outside the reach of the law. It is our duty to ask "why?". We, the adults, need to reject intimidation, choosing instead to discuss graffiti policies openly, in public testimony.

A spirited debate ensued. Opponents called for a quorum. Absence of a quorum prevented a vote on the motion.

At the Ward 10 Convention, the Mayor offered to ask his staff to arrange a meeting with him and the City Attorey to discuss the issue. Staff did not follow-up on his offer.

At the City Convention, the Mayor was asked about the lack of follow-up to his offer. He instructed an aide to make the arrangements. Time will tell.

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