THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, August 4, 1994 TAG: 9408030096
SECTION: NORFOLK COMPASS PAGE: 12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Cover Story
SOURCE: BY MIKE KNEPLER, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 208 lines
NORFOLK IS declaring war on graffiti, but some property owners fear getting caught in the cross fire.
The declaration of war will come in the form of a get-tough anti-graffiti ordinance. It's expected to go to the City Council in September.
The law would establish graffiti as a ``public and private nuisance'' punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor. That could mean fines of up to $2,500 and a year in jail.
Juveniles could face at least 30 hours of community service, including time cleaning graffiti.
At least one parent of an offending juvenile also could be sentenced. The penalty: accompany the child on at least half of the community service.
But it's another section in the proposed law that worries some business people, including two councilmen. This provision would impose fines on property owners of $250 to $1,000 for not removing graffiti within 10 days.
Also, the city could remove the graffiti and put liens on properties when owners do not pay for the clean-up. Officials promise to be flexible in imposing the ordinance.
But owners of business properties are wary.
``If this ordinance goes through the way they've planned it, then the victim is penalized,'' said Vice Mayor Paul R. Riddick, a funeral parlor owner. ``The business owner is punished for the bad children in Norfolk who scribbled the graffiti.''
Councilman W. Randy Wright, who owns a print shop, expressed similar concerns. ``You have to be a little bit careful about fining people for something that's not their fault,'' he said. ``I'm all in favor of an ordinance against graffiti, but this one is not quite fair.''
Repeated attacks by graffiti vandals could drive some struggling merchants out of business because of the costs of city clean-ups and fines, Wright said.
``They can't afford to keep cleaning their buildings and paying fines,'' he said. ``We could end up with more business vacancies.''
The impetus for the proposed ordinance stems from the belief that graffiti is increasing in Norfolk.
Police also say graffiti vandals are hard to catch but their mischief adds to the public's perception that Norfolk is blighted and unsafe.
City officials fear that graffiti will spread if left unchecked and eventually hurt property values.
``The existence of graffiti attracts more graffiti,'' said Kristen M. Lentz, assistant director of public works.
Graffiti also is a problem on public property, such as parks, recreation centers and schools.
``We really want to get a handle on the problem before it gets out of hand,'' Lentz said, ``because cities like Phoenix, Ariz., spend $1 million a year on graffiti abatement.''
So far, Norfolk has minimized the impact of graffiti on public property through quick cleaning.
``I have a policy that whenever we do have graffiti, the first thing I do is call police and allow them to have an opportunity to look at it to see if it's gang-related,'' said Stanley Stein, parks and recreation director. ``Then we clean it up within 48 hours. If you don't clean it up, it has a habit of growing.''
Norfolk also is weighing an idea from the sheriff's department to have non-violent prisoners remove graffiti. But the work could be done only on public property, not on private buildings, Lentz said.
Another idea, from Police Lt. Jim Brownlie, is to ask courts to assign any non-violent juvenile offender to graffiti clean-up, not just youngsters caught defacing property. The notion is to spread the word, through example, that painting graffiti on buildings is ``uncool.''
Businessmen agree that Norfolk must be tough on graffiti, but they voice warnings about imposing fines on private owners.
The overall thrust of a strong anti-graffiti ordinance ``sounds like it would be wonderful,'' said Brian Hirschler, president of the Wards Corner Merchants Association. ``But I don't know about holding the property owners responsible.
``You have gangs and kids out there who would come back every week and put (the graffiti) right back,'' he added. ``It's the easy way out to say, `Let the businessman pay for it, let the land owner pay for it.' But it's just not right.''
Carlos A. Howard, president of the 35th Street Merchants Association, also was opposed.
``I think that's another way for the city to illegally garner money for their coffers,'' he said. ``It's the wrong thing to do to impose such a harsh measure. It takes away from the small businessman's day-to-day operating funds.''
Robert Keogh, chairman of the Norfolk Division of the Chamber of Commerce of Hampton Roads, said he understood the city's reason for aiming part of the ordinance at property owners.
``We want to do away with graffiti quickly before it proliferates,'' he said. ``But in dealing with it quickly, you don't want to victimize the victims. It cannot be: 10 days to clean up or boom, you're fined.''
Keogh said the proposed ordinance may be worded too rigidly.
``We got this legal language that makes everything seem so harsh, so cold,'' he said. ``The business community is concerned how the ordinance will be interpreted.''
He urged flexibility to allow a ``subjective interpretation'' and encourages a public-private working relationship to get rid of graffiti, rather than putting the entire onus on property owners.
``We don't want to see fines,'' he said. ``We want to see things worked out before that happens.''
Few businessmen have publicly endorsed the proposed ordinance.
The Ghent Business Association does not yet have a position. Dick Gresham, president, said he likes ``the idea of youth taking responsibility for damages they impose,'' but he's uncertain whether City Hall should fine property owners who do not remove graffiti.
But Doug Blankenship, immediate past president of the Ghent group, compared the graffiti problem to the results of other vandalism, such as broken windows.
``If I have a broken window, I don't expect the city to pay for that,'' Blankenship said.
But other business leaders contend that broken windows need to be repaired quickly while graffiti is not as immediate a problem.
``Broken glass is a danger to the public. Graffiti is a not a danger,'' said Hirschler of Wards Corner.
Despite their criticisms, business leaders want a strong ordinance. They offered few alternatives.
Keogh said the city needs power to levy fines as a last resort against property owners who do not remove graffiti. ``The fine gives (the law) some guts,'' he said.
But the provision should be worded so it is aimed more at out-of-town owners of derelict property rather than ``real live properties and corporate citizens.''
``It's a slippery fish, how you deal with it,'' Keogh said. ``It's all how you interpret it.''
Howard suggested that City Hall and property owners split the cost of graffiti removal ``if a business can't take it off right away.''
Hirschler said Norfolk could give owners six months to remove graffiti instead of 10 days.
Vice Mayor Riddick contended that most owners would remove graffiti out of personal pride.
He said graffiti needed to be addressed as part of a comprehensive effort to give youngsters alternatives to vandalism.
Graffiti, Riddick said, is symptomatic of how ``recreation is failing to deal with basic problems, that schools are failing to deal with them and that parents are failing to deal with them.''
Councilman Wright said he might support an idea that would have the city hire a company to remove graffiti from private property on annual, citywide contracts. He hopes that would reduce costs for building owners.
Norfolk could be the first city to assign a contract for graffiti removal, said Lentz of public works.
Mayor Paul D. Fraim says he's aware of the complaints with the proposed ordinance and agrees that the city must be careful in its approach to property owners.
For example, Fraim said Norfolk should be lenient with owners whose properties often are defaced.
``If it looks like someone is being terrorized, I think the city would be flexible,'' he said. ``We want to be flexible in the ordinance so we can address individual problems.''
Lentz agreed. ``With fines, the intention is that they will used on property owners who show no effort and no care for their properties,'' she said. ``It's anticipated that in a vast majority of cases, we won't have to use that provision at all.''
The city also wants to give property owners advice on the best ways to remove graffiti and even help prevent it through better outdoor lighting or landscaping, Lentz said.
City Hall recently sent letters to business groups detailing the proposed ordinance and asking for comments, she said. MEMO: For information, call Kristen M. Lentz, assistant director of public
works, 441-1486.
ILLUSTRATION: Color staff photos by RICHARD L. DUNSTON
City workers remove graffiti from a West Glen Road basketball court.
So far, Norfolk has minimized graffiti on public property through
quick cleaning.
Graffiti covers a wall on 30th Bay St. at the Bay Point subdivision
in East Ocean View. Officials fear it is increasing on public and
private property in the city.
Black/white graffiti photos courtesy/CITY OF NORFOLK
Norfolk's tough new ordinance would crack down on graffiti such as
this ``artwork'' found on the side of a building in the Huntersville
area.
This graffiti is on a building on Sewells Point Road in Norview.
``The existence of graffiti attracts more graffiti,'' says Kristen
Lentz, assistant director of public works.
Staff photo by Christopher Reddick
The ordinance, says Vice Mayor Paul R. Riddick, will punish the
victims. In the photo at left he stands outside his funeral parlor,
which has been hit by graffiti vandals in the past. But police
contend that scribblings such as the graffiti in the photo at left
adds to the public perception that Norfolk is blighted and unsafe.
GRAFFITI FACTS
Proposed anti-graffiti ordinance would:
Declare graffiti to be ``obnoxious and a public and private
nuisance'' that ``must be quickly abated.''
Make the creation of graffiti a Class 1 misdemeanor, which could
result in fines of up to $2,500 and/or up to 12 months in jail.
Establish community service as one punishment for graffiti.
Minors under the age of 18 could be sentenced to at least 30 hours
of community service, including graffiti removal. At least one of
their parents could be sentenced to accompany the youngster for half
of the community service assignment.
Require property owners to remove or cover graffiti within 10
days or face fines of $250 to $1,000 plus reimburse the city for
cleaning the graffiti. City Hall could place liens for cost
recovery.
by CNB