SFist: Jail Time for Graffiti?

mcgordonliddy

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:15:47 -0800

If it's paid with tax dollars, not only does it belong to everyone else - it's paid for and maintained by everyone else. I don't want to have to subsidize your canvass. Buy a sketchpad with your own money.

JoeyGirl

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:00:30 -0800

public property = fair game. private property = punish how you please. if it's paid with tax dollars, then it belongs to everyone. and it will always go back to the issue that some people think it's wrong and some people think it isn't. it's all a matter of public opinion; thus making each opinion valid and none better than the other. and don't kid yourself and think that the money used for buffing tags would go to education. that's just another piece of public deception to make you feel as if you are indirectly, or directly for that matter, violated by the situation. the definition of "art" has always been and will always be subjective.

JoeyGirl

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:59:02 -0800

public property = fair game. private property = punish how you please. if it's paid with tax dollars, then it belongs to everyone. and it will always go back to the issue that some people think it's wrong and some people think it isn't. it's all a matter of public opinion; thus making each opinion valid and none better the other. and don't kid yourself and think that the money used for buffing tags would go to education. that's just another piece of public deception to make you feel as if you are indirectly, or directly for that matter, violated by the situation. the definition of "art" has always been and will always be subjective.

Jesse

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:38:25 -0800

I used to call 311 to report graffiti but now there's a website that makes it much faster to log a report. Property owners I required to clean it up in 30 days I believe. http://www.sfgov.org/site/sf311rfs_index.asp?id=91960

Darkmoon

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:29:23 -0800

Dang that wound up in the wrong spot, really I wasn't tagging. Frickin' technology :-)

Darkmoon

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:23:16 -0800

Thank You I'll be around till some gang-banging tagger accidently shots me in a drive by before they burn Mommie and Daddy's SUV.

lardtub

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:27:15 -0800

subversive: tending to subvert or advocating subversion, esp. in an attempt to overthrow or cause the destruction of an established or legally constituted government. so you're mad that people write graffiti because it destroys things that have been established by people other than the taggers. yet still, you say banksy is fine because you consider his stuff to be subversive (i still don't, by the way- i think it is funny but people have been using the same imagery for 30 years now). so what you're saying is that you like subversity in theory but won't have it in your backyard?

Generic

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:57:22 -0800

You need to revisit your definition of subversive.

lardtub

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 04:53:00 -0800

craeg, you have obviously never been to ny. i grew up there and i have seen someone taking a dump INSIDE penn station. i have also been robbed, stepped on a dead cat, and stepped in a bunch of shit. human? who knows. oh yeah and GRAFFITI ORIGINATED IN NY. and to this day ny has some of the best graffiti in the world. civic pride is about taking pride in the culture that your city has to offer, and respecting the residents. trying to keep them safe and happy. civic pride shouldn't make a place boring and more police state-ish...if small business owners can't deal with the cost of cleaning graffiti, the dpw should pay for it instead of spending our tax dollars on jailtime for bored teenagers and artists.

lardtub

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 04:37:43 -0800

do your research. lots of famous writers come from sf. you obviously know nothing about the history of graffiti...

lardtub

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 04:34:40 -0800

banksy is not subversive. just because some guy got famous for stenciling does not make him subversive. besides, how do you think banksy got his start? do you think he magically popped up in a graffiti book at urban outfitters one day? no. he tagged a lot and "fucked up" a lot of properties. then some peace not war type liked his flowers not grenade thing and he became a symbol. and suddenly it was ok to make banksy style stencils, but the ORFNs and SPESHs and BRITEs of the world will still get locked up for their art.

lardtub

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 04:26:19 -0800

people write graffiti on my property frequently. i only clean it up when the city makes me, because most of it is pretty good. a living city is one where people can touch the things around them, and having a bunch of new sidewalks and flowers planted in your neighborhood does not give release to talented young people.

underachieving

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:40:13 -0800

I wish the Toilet Torcher would become the Tagger Torcher instead. Port-a-poopers are useful. Taggers are not.

hubcap

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:27:09 -0800

the only time this shit really bothers me is when they mess with traffic/street signs. anything else is fair game.

aj

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:55:11 -0800

It makes sense in SF, where you are only punished if you follow the law, never if you break it.

aj

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:51:01 -0800

That's the best idea yet. Specifically, tag their parents' BMWs.

SFBurke

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:49:13 -0800

@brittney: Please post your address so that the taggers can do their work on your property. There is no reason the rest of us should have to pay to clean up the mess they make. There is no justification for tagging or graffiti. It degrages the aesthetics of the City and promotes crime. Again, if you like graffit so much, then you should be the one paying for it; not the vast majority of citizens who have enough sense to recognize that it is just blight.

aj

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:48:49 -0800

Did you throw the book at him?

tweedlebugb

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:16:10 -0800

Great idea miu miu! Cutting off a hand - i like!

Joel

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:15:11 -0800

I have a hard time imagining anyone who spends enough time around here and reads some of the argumentative/ridiculous/hateful/inane comments people write (including myself on occasion) would actually believe that comments here are "censored."

Brock Keeling

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:03:07 -0800

you are a mental giant, mushmouth. really.

mushmouth

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:25:28 -0800

It seems that SFist is censoring comments, I responded to this twice, albeit with a terse "RTFA" (re-submitting when it didn't show up) and saw someone else's response, pointing out Seattle and Singapore as an example. These were all expunged. I guess I would be better off tagging these responses on the side of Brock car.

ru4real

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:05:50 -0800

I second that Bravo. Graffiti is not art. Art is art. Graffiti vandalism is illegal and destroying this City. As Nevius points out, "where is out civic pride"? It costs the city around $20 million a year to clean up graffiti. Do you know how much good that money could do in this city other than cleaning up after "entitled" people. The $20 mil could go to our public schools, homelessness, "true" art programs"etc. Oh, and the vandals are both under age kids and adults who spend alot of money on their gear. Most don't live in this City. They travel here, vandalize our City and then go home to where ever they live. Come on people, let's take care of our City. Who wants to live in squalor!

Joel

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:49:40 -0800

Bravo.

craeg

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:58:15 -0800

I lump people who support taggers as performance artists in with those who tell me to go back to walnut creek when I complain about homeless people shooting up or sh*tting on the streets. This city has a massive civic pride problem. For some reason, it is ingrained in our civic culture that a city is supposed to be a dirty place, and that any attempt to clean it up is whitewashing- destroying culture - making it look just like anyplace USA. This is reinforced by people who have moved to SF from some suburban whitewashed town who use the homeless, the taggers, the violent to validate their existence as edgy urbanites. Make no mistake: This city is filthy with a clearly dysfunctional sense of ethics. Look at other cities and how they handle this problem. Chicago is immaculate. NY is less so, but is clearly 10X cleaner than SF. You would NEVER see someone taking a dump near grand central or port authority - but you see it all the time near the transbay. SF needs to grow a pair and start actually enforcing the laws as they exist today. Stop this anything goes BS.

miumiu

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:40:55 -0800

What next? cutting off a hand? I love the public art - but the tagging is out of control and obnoxious. It reeks of entitlement (oh i have a can of spray paint and i can paint wherever i want because i'm young/urban/hip/rad/blah/blah/blah) and if I hear one more well meaning white person defend 'urban youth's right to expression' i will scream. or hit them. or both. Tagging is lame. passive aggressive bullshit. worse than dogs pissing on their turf. I think people are talking about jail time because home owners and small businesspeople are packing heat and starting to threaten to shoot taggers. Which we all want to avoid. non? Taggers should pay every cent of the costs for clean up- either through their own funds or with their time.

tweedlebugb

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:27:26 -0800

YES! Finally some reason! Throw these hoods in jail for tagging homes, stores, schools, etc! Make them pay for the damages or make them remove the tagging! There is a huge difference of murals and actual art vs. some assh*le scrawling his name on my garage door like someone did last month. And guess what guys, I have to pay to have it removed OR i get slapped with a fat fine from the city. Makes absolutely no sense!

Darkmoon

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:21:08 -0800

How about tagging the 'taggers'? When they are spotted just paintball them !!!! They probably wouldn't appreciate their favorite hoody' being messed up by some god awful day-glow colored splotches. Or when they get busted send out a squad of citizen's with paintball guns and 'tag' their property. Their car, their home... inside to and definetly their computer and TV. I have a distinct feeling they would get the message real quick that it's not appreciated. The Graffiti art that is put on the side of buildings that the owner of the buildings allow it way cool usually. Like the Mural at The Woman's Building and stuff like that. This crap of just putting your mark anywhere and everywhere is just a bunch of BS. "Tag the Tagger's", I wonder how much bumperstickers with that on them would cost to make?

magdelyn

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:52:18 -0800

Someone tagged my VW bus once. Luckily, the did it on the windown. It wasn't too hard to get off. I still wanted to bop them in the nose though.

Joel

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:51:37 -0800

Works for me.

kimmie kim kim

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:46:30 -0800

YES! thanks generic.

piratesnack

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:35:09 -0800

How about, if caught tagging, you are no longer entitled to the benefits of the San Francisco rent control ordinance?

LibertyHiller

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:34:11 -0800

After having been called for jury duty because some tagger wanted a "fair" trial, I would be satisfied to see those punks receive a solid beating rather than jail time, but I think GlenParker is on to something.

periqueblend

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:21:30 -0800

Well its not just young idiots, its not even new, to wit: "I was, after the fashion of humanity, in love with my name, and, as young educated people commonly do, I wrote it everywhere." - Goethe 1811

sfrealist

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:16:07 -0800

Agreed. No need for new laws. Just enforce what we've got. Toss a couple rich kids in jail for a month (six is too long). Word would spread around Marin and tagging would be a lot less cool.

periqueblend

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:11:00 -0800

and white kids who come from the east bay to skate board, bangers marking their turf, people doing 'art' people who are bored and anti-social, it is a wide, wide range. The hessher employees at Arinell's tag all over the place. NYC is still covered in graffiti by the way, the broken windows theory was greatly helped by an improving economy, and the idea that if you bust one, word would spread is bunk. Plus I'd hate for this to be yet another thing that if you're rich / educated you pay no penalty, but if you're poor your screwed. Enforce the laws on the books BEFORE you make new ones.

Joel

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:08:08 -0800

Actually, one time I saw a white kid around 14 or so get kicked off the 18 near Noriega by the driver when he recognized him as a tagger. There's not a lot of white kids in the areas that most SFist readers live in, not a whole lot in the city, period, but they are there.

manys

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:07:54 -0800

why the scare quotes? oh, i see now. it's because the site is not actually about graffiti, but stencil and paste-ups.

EllyMental

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:07:33 -0800

Unfortunately the majority of graffiti (99.99%) is not 'good graffiti'. Nor are the kids doing it artists. They're just punks who happen to have a marker in their back pocket and wnat to show the world their dumb juvenile anti-establishmentarianism. Hey alright! I finally get to use that word!

sfrealist

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:00:46 -0800

@johnny--I should have been more specific. From what business owners in my hood say, it's rich white kids from Marin, not from SF.

phlavor

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:00:01 -0800

It's a slippery slope. On one end, I don't want someone etching "cunt" on the window of my house and on the other end I love this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cassidy/2916996266/ and this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianbrooks/3358111859/ and even to some extent this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/heather/3223200586/ and I don't want to live in some vanilla assed town where everything is the same shade of beige. Do these people deserve jail time: http://www.flickr.com/photos/takeitez/3212554290/

johnnystarseed

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:57:03 -0800

@sfrealist - There aren't any white kids in this city (unless you count the pre-school children living in Noe Valley and I doubt they're responsible for this). At least in my hood, it's the gangbangers marking their territory - ages range from late teens to early 30's (from my eye witness accounts).

aj

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:56:07 -0800

How about a $1000 fine, payable in cash or community service beginning at 6 am each work day picking up trash or painting over tags, no exceptions?

Generic

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:55:27 -0800

IT IS CONFUSING. We want the sublime, subversive stuff (banksy, Mission alleys) to stay. Very, very much. And we want the crappy tagging (NEV702, LXL) to be criminalized. Very, very much. It's like abortion, so thorny are the legal issues.

aj

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:53:29 -0800

NYC and Singapore come to mind. Of course, it being San Francisco, some would tag just to get the caning.

MT

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:52:19 -0800

Here's what good 'graffiti' looks like. http://www.streetsy.com/

sfrealist

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:44:58 -0800

I think the point was that we change some behavior for the best. If we tossed a couple of these buggers in jail for a month, word would spread quickly among them and they'd stop vandalizing buildings. It would be effective exactly because they're generally rich white kids who don't want to screw up their future.

manys

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:23:56 -0800

such as?

Brock Keeling

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:21:39 -0800

Yes. Or no. Wait, I'm confused.

GlenParker

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:19:14 -0800

Line these little tagging asshole against the wall and shoot them in the head and then call the blood and brains splattered on the wall "art."

mcgordonliddy

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:19:10 -0800

Isn't that what you're claiming? You're for it if you say it's art, and you're against it if you say it isn't art. If you can't claim it is or isn't art, then it's all bad or it's all good. I swear this makes sense somehow.

aj

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:14:18 -0800

Or perhaps actual consequences would deter the aforementioned crimes. It has worked in many other cities.

Brock Keeling

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:12:41 -0800

sometimes i am for it, sometimes i am against it. but i stand by my initial response to the claim of what is and isn't art.

periqueblend

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:08:37 -0800

I guess my original comment disappeared. This is a dumb idea - but I don't blame Nevius, that's his job. Unenforceable, reactionary, and irrational, it doesn't matter he's a columnist. But if this did go into effect and middle class white kids start going to jail - getting criminal records, and ruining their college dreams it would come to a screeching halt. But his job isn't to stop homeless people from camping in Golden Gate park, or kids from tagging the 14 mission, its to write a column that will get a reaction.

mcgordonliddy

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:08:15 -0800

so are you for graffiti or against it, Brock? You can't say one poster is many shades of wrong and then backtrack three comments later.

hoboking

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:06:46 -0800

Ummm. Tagging, etching and stenciling are all already felonies if a) Damage is over $400 (easy to claim, given the cost of repainting or replacing an etched window) b) defendant has prior vandalism charge. Felony means punishable by a year or more in prison. Now, if as ol' CW says graffiti in SF is because "San Francisco taggers are more likely to get off with community service or probation" that means either they are first time offenders or the DA is choosing not to press felony charges. Why would the DA seek a lesser charge? Maybe because juries in this town aren't likely to convict someone to a year in State Prison for etching a window...maybe they should? Another silly mandatory minimum isn't the fix. Especially if the issue is community/juror reluctance to impose the already available harsher penalties. Just my thoughts, but it's not my job to help prop up a failing daily paper with polemic and hysteria...

lanersg

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:06:28 -0800

The city fines business for having graffiti. So you get crap painted on your building every night and then the city comes out once a month and tells you that you have 30 days to remove it or they'll remove it and charge you for it. It gets really expensive.

maggie may

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:06:14 -0800

Every week, the market across the street from my house is tagged. No pretty paintings or symbolic animals or messages from the messiah. Just large rude letters. So that drivers on the very busy street nearby can see that this is someone's "territory." The market is a one man operation, with part time assistant. So it takes a few days, bless them for not taking more than a few days, to repaint the plain wall in its original lime green. For a couple weeks, tops. Paint. Repaint. And there are people trying to defend this as part of the quality of life in SF?

Joel

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:02:06 -0800

Anyway, my complaints about the "What White People Like"-esque fetishizing of vandalism aside, jailtime for even tagging is ridiculous on a number of levels. There should be more enforcement of current laws (starting with people actually saying something when they're on a crowded bus and some punk kid pulls out a marker), but pursuing non-violent offenders to imprison them helps no one.

porkbun

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:00:55 -0800

I see no problem busting people for messing with homes or public transit. No one in SF wants to see scribbles by some dipshit kid visiting from Vallejo.

Brock Keeling

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:54:56 -0800

i do think it's wrong to destroy someone's private property. very much so.

kimmie kim kim

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:52:37 -0800

while it is art to some, i'm sure many others, like myself, consider a majority of tagging to be vandalism. do you not see something wrong with store/home-owners being forced to shell out money time and again to clean up their property? note, THEIR property: private property. i often take the 49 bus and i'd say that 99% of the time it's covered (in the back half) with graffiti. knowing that my bus fare and tax dollars are being used to clean the "art" up, instead of going towards other areas of MUNI improvement is frustrating.

hillarys_quivering_lip

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:48:26 -0800

I really think some more inspirational quotations from CV himself posted in high-graffiti areas will likely fix things.

TeamAwesome

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:47:26 -0800

This is a great idea, because what we really need in CA is more people in our already crowded jails! I mean, really, why fund schools when we need that money to house more nonviolent prisoners. QUALITY OF LIFE.

Joel

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:42:25 -0800

Some shitty kid (oh, pardon me, rogue) scrawled some incomprehensible (to most, at least) shit across the glass of my building's entryway during summer '07 and my landlord still hasn't been able to get it off. How whimsical!

Brock Keeling

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:37:48 -0800

aleph1

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:35:00 -0800

Maybe we can criminalize only bad graffiti?

kimmie kim kim

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:34:15 -0800

there's a difference between graffiti art and mindless tagging. the graffiti on the back of buses is not art, the tagging that independent business owners have to clean up on their storefronts, over and over, is not art. did you even read the article? residents are frustrated because their houses are being tagged. others are infuriated because freeway signs have been rendered unreadable. the tagging they're talking about is not the banksy-type, subversive artwork, it's about the kids with sharpies and spray cans with too much time on their hands.

brittney

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:32:50 -0800

Nor a homeowner. Just speaking for myself, personally. I can definitely see why others would not feel the same way.

izzyizzy

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:28:27 -0800

What a marvelous solution to prison overcrowding.

mcgordonliddy

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:27:35 -0800

you're obviously not a small business owner.

brittney

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:23:26 -0800

I'll say it: Tagging, graffiti and street art is one reason why I love living in San Francisco. If it was all shitty, I'd say otherwise, but there is serious talent in this city, and seeing rogue art everywhere I go fills me with happiness and pride.