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

Censorship

E-Democracy.org claims to be "The Civil Online Town Hall". For Minneapolis, it's "A place to discuss local-level Minneapolis civic issues". Childish insults are often thrown at the Mayor and other elected officials, while legitimate discussion of issues affecting the politics of Ward 10 are censored.

The post below was deleted 2 May 2009 by David Brauer, E-Democracy Forum Manager. "I'm a censor," he bragged. 

I heard a rumor that Rep. Frank Hornstein and Rep. Jeff Hayden are refusing to support the endorsed candidate for Council in the 10th Ward. Does anyone know if that is true? If true, why not?

Both represent parts of the 10th Ward, so it would be very strange for elected DFL officials to work against an endorsed candidate.

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

Another example of censorship by David Brauer, E-Democracy Forum Manager:

In the list of All posts in the topic Graffiti - a healthy debate, four are identified. Conspicuously absent is the post that started the discussion (31 August 2009).

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