How do Washington cities deal with the problem of graffiti on public and private property?
There appear to be two basic approaches taken by Washington cities to regulate and control graffiti. One approach is aimed at the "graffiti artists" or "taggers" and makes it a crime to damage or deface public or private property. Of course, to be effective this approach requires that police officers must actually catch a tagger in the act. These types of ordinances have been on the books for a long time and, while necessary to have in place, they have not proven to be particularly effective at deterring many graffiti artists.
A new approach being tried by some cities is aimed at getting the graffiti removed as soon as possible, the theory being that quick removal will deny the graffiti artists any time to admire their work and therefore remove, or at least reduce, their incentive to do it in the first place. On public property this means some sort of active monitoring program and the use of either city crews or volunteers to wash walls and paint over the graffiti. This may work fine on public property but how do you deal with graffiti on private property? The answer to that in some cities has been to regulate it as a public nuisance and to require removal by the property owner.
Other Strategies
Redmond's innovative approach involves the construction of a legal graffiti wall where taggers are invited to do their thing on a designated display wall, the hope being that they will be less inclined to paint somewhere else.
Pasco has a particularly effective graffiti abatement program which involves the enlistment of juvenile offenders doing community service work to remove graffiti within 48 hours.
Some cities in other states have gone so far as to prohibit the sale of spray paint to minors in an attempt to cut off the supply of paint to the graffiti artists.
St. Paul, Minnesota has found a way to use the Internet to help control graffiti. Their Web site has a place for citizens to report graffiti on public or private property.
WWW Links
Check out this Anti-Graffiti Web site (http://www.dougweb.com/pgraf.html) for a comprehensive collection of links (http://www.dougweb.com/grlinks.html) related to graffiti abatement, removal, and anti-graffiti neighborhood activities.
Sample ordinances
The following are examples of provisions that make it a misdemeanor to deface, damage or destroy property of another:
- Seattle Ordinance No. 118106
- Sec. 10A.48.090, Bellevue Municipal Code
The following city ordinances or code sections are examples which address the problem of graffiti as a public nuisance and require clean up or removal by property owners:
- Seattle Ordinance No. 118082
- Ch. 7.35, SeaTac Municipal Code
You should review these sample ordinances with your city attorney to evaluate the appropriateness for use by your city and for consistency with state law.
Statutes:
In 1996, the State Legislature amended certain state law provisions to increase the penalties for placing graffiti on the property of another person (Chapter 35, Laws of 1996, codified at RCW 9A.48.090, making acts of graffiti malicious mischief in the third degree). The 1996 legislation also imposed financial responsibility on the parents of minors involved in acts of graffiti in some circumstances (Chapter 35, Laws of 1996, codified at RCW 4.24.190).
Additional Resources:
The Municipal Research and Services Center has a significant collection of materials on graffiti abatement and control that discuss a variety of options and programs in addition to police power regulations imposing criminal or civil penalties. Items available on loan include a publication by the National League of Cities (NLC) , Volume 5, No. 3 of the Issues and Options Series titled, "Graffiti Abatement: Programs That Work," dated April, 1997 and more information on the City of Pasco's Graffiti Abatement Program. These materials can be requested by Washington city, town, and county officials and employees by contacting the MRSC's Library staff.
Can Ch. 133, Laws of 1998, making it a civil infraction for minors to possess cigarettes, be enforced in municipal court without a city adopting the statute by reference?
The 1998 legislature, in Chapter 133, amended RCW 70.155.080 to make the possession of cigarettes by a person under the age of eighteen a civil infraction. This statute now reads:
(1) A person under the age of eighteen who purchases or attempts to purchase, possesses, or obtains or attempts to obtain cigarettes or tobacco products commits a class 3 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and is subject to a fine as set out in chapter 7.80 RCW or participation in up to four hours of community service, or both. The court may also require participation in a smoking cessation program. This provision does not apply if a person under the age of eighteen, with parental authorization, is participating in a controlled purchase as part of a liquor control board, law enforcement, or local health department activity.
(2) Municipal and district courts within the state have jurisdiction for enforcement of this section.
The caller asked if, in our opinion, a city would need to adopt this statute by reference to be able to enforce it in municipal court, given the language in subsection (2).
In our opinion, a city does not need to adopt the statute by reference, because the statute itself, without more, gives cities the authority to enforce it in municipal court. The very purpose of adoption by reference is to give a city the authority to enforce a statute in municipal court. Since this statute expressly gives municipal courts that authority, adoption by reference is unnecessary. Although the language in subsection (2) was added because the statute deals with juveniles, over whom a municipal court does not generally have jurisdiction, this should not affect enforcement authority without an adopting ordinance.