Graffiti is one of those social ills that often seems impossible to fix, as communities struggle to prevent and clean up these unsightly marks. This form of vandalism is destructive and hard to remove and has a particularly negative effect on an area’s image. In Biddeford, where so much effort has gone into revitalizing the downtown district, graffiti is a criminal act that simply cannot be tolerated.

The city’s policy committee is now forwarding a proposed anti-graffiti ordinance on to the city council for consideration in their efforts to combat this scourge. The ordinance is already controversial, passing with a narrow margin of 3-2 in committee and garnering heated comments.

Though it is certainly not a cure-all, we believe this proposed ordinance is a good first step in bringing the problem up for discussion. Done correctly, it can be another tool in the box for the reinvention of the downtown.

The problem with graffiti is that it’s a respect issue, just like domestic violence, drug abuse, and drunk driving. Those are the hardest behaviors to combat because they’re done by people who have no respect for themselves, others or their community. It’s a lot harder and more time consuming to instill that respect than it is to bring down the heavy hand of the law.

And the ordinance would do just that, fining those who scrawl graffiti at least $500 plus costs for removing graffiti per violation, with parents also being held liable for minors; and 25 hours of community service.

Taking a law enforcement approach to the problem is the quickest answer, but it’s simply not feasible to have a police officer on every corner, guarding every road sign or bridge embankment, and it’s hard to find the culprit after the deed is done.

Advertisement

The best approach is prevention, it seems, and the ordinance proposed by the committee includes that, in part. It makes sense to keep spray paint behind a counter, as the ordinance proposes, rather than in easy reach of any would-be ne’er do well. It makes sense to post the repercussions they could face should they choose to use the product for vandalism.

Part of the ordinance’s focus is also to prohibit minors from purchasing spray paint without parental consent and would make it illegal for a store to sell spray paint and related items to a minor without that approval. This seems a good approach, considering that it’s hard to conceive of an instance in which a young person would need to use spray paint legitimately without adult supervision.

However, while many people think of unsightly “tagging” as the province of those under 18, Police Chief Roger Beaupre has told the committee that it’s actually adults who are more often found spray painting property that does not belong to them.

The biggest challenge will be combating the acts of these people, and the ordinance presumes to do that with a provision stating that anyone caught with spray paint or related items “in private or public buildings, facilities, parks or other places or within 50 feet of underpasses, overpasses, bridge abutments or storm drains” would be recognized as having the intent to create graffiti.

Those illegally possessing or furnishing graffiti implements would be fined up to $250 per incident, plus costs, per the ordinance.

It seems good sense to presume that a person carrying spray paint with them, far from their own property where they might have a project to complete, is up to no good, as the ordinance proposes. There is simply no reason to have such an item with you at a public park unless you intend to leave your mark. However, we agree with Chief Beaupre that it will be tough to enforce. Are we going to start searching the bags and pockets of everyone who enters a city park or building or walks near a bridge?

Advertisement

It seems this provision might not help police enforce anti-vandalism laws any more than they already can.

Some time back, one local youth had said he thought no one cared about his graffiti because it was never removed. Obviously, that young man had no idea how expensive and time consuming it is to get that paint off once it’s there, but he had a point and it seems to us that the removal part of the ordinance might be its strongest section overall. As written, it includes a requirement that property owners must remove or submit a plan to the city for removal of graffiti from their premises within 10 days.

Yes, it puts an extra burden on property owners, but anyone who owns something should expect that they will have to keep it up to certain standards. Enforcing removal of graffiti as soon as it’s done would send a powerful message to the vandals. After all, who wants to waste their time making marks that no one is going to see?

We hope the city council gives this ordinance careful consideration once it’s in their hands and considers whether or not it is enforceable, whether it’s fair, and whether it will make any difference.

Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ

Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via e-mail at kristenm@journaltribune.com.



        Comments are not available on this story.