On 9/14/2021 10:03 AM, Walt In Seattle wrote:
> Sometimes, graffiti can be artistic and is considered by the person who created it as artistic expression. But that's not ALL the time. There are those who are more into defacement or using property that's not their own to serve as a territorial message from a group/gang who, in effect, are attempting to establish a form of supremacy over a given location. Do most taggers give a damn about whatever they deface? Do they believe their message or expression is all that's important and the concept of public or private property not being theirs to cover n graffiti is, to them, a foreign concept or one for which they'd never have respect because they have no respect in the first instance for the notion there is ANYTHING on which they should not and can not leave their mark and/or expression? If yes, how can Seattle deal with this? Seattle spends money and assigns much time as well as effort attempting to remove or paint over graffiti. Is that a waste of resources? Seattle could just giveup and allow the city to become a place covered in graffiti, some of which may be objectionable and/or offensive to some people. Some of it may be meant to intimidate? Is it appropriate to just givep
on discouraging that sort of activity? If it's not OK to giveup on discouraging such activity, what IS OK?
>

To your "Seattle spends money and assigns much time as well
as effort attempting to remove or paint over graffiti."

They spend some time & money on repairing city property.

One of many reasons I sold my last house in Seattle
was it was on an arterial, near a bus stop.
I had built a nice cedar fence, and left it to
age the nice cedar color.
The tagging, was quickly spotted by the city inspectors,
who were very quick to mail me notices, and threats.
They, and the city attorney would do nothing
to stop the criminals, but were very quick to
threaten me with fines.
So, the entire fence had to be painted.
And repainted, and again.
And, the asshole city inspectors made threats,
even after I had fixed it. And would never
answer their phones. Assholes!!

And now, many idiots in the city government
are saying they do not believe in the
"Broken windows" Theory! Idiots.

On 9/15/2021 8:41 AM, a425couple wrote:
> On 9/14/2021 10:03 AM, Walt In Seattle wrote:
>> Sometimes, graffiti can be artistic and is considered by the person
>> who created it as artistic expression. But that's not ALL the time.
>> There are those who are more into defacement  or using property that's
>> not their own to serve as a territorial message from a group/gang who,
>> in effect, are attempting to establish a form of supremacy over a
>> given location. Do most taggers give a damn about whatever they
>> deface? Do they believe their message or expression is all that's
>> important and the concept of public or private property not being
>> theirs  to cover n graffiti is, to them, a foreign concept or one for
>> which they'd never have respect because they have no respect in the
>> first instance for the notion there is ANYTHING on which they should
>> not and can not leave their mark and/or expression? If yes, how can
>> Seattle deal with this? Seattle spends money and assigns much time as
>> well as effort attempting to remove or paint over graffiti. Is that a
>> waste of resources? Seattle could just giveup and allow the city to
>> become a place covered in graffiti, some of which may be objectionable
>> and/or offensive to some people. Some of it may be meant to
>> intimidate? Is it appropriate to just givep on discouraging that sort
>> of activity? If it's not OK to giveup on discouraging such activity,
>> what IS OK?
>>
>
> To your "Seattle spends money and assigns much time as well
> as effort attempting to remove or paint over graffiti."
>
> They spend some time & money on repairing city property.
>
> One of many reasons I sold my last house in Seattle
> was it was on an arterial, near a bus stop.
> I had built a nice cedar fence, and left it to
> age the nice cedar color.
> The tagging, was quickly spotted by the city inspectors,
> who were very quick to mail me notices, and threats.
> They, and the city attorney would do nothing
> to stop the criminals,

You have to prosecute them to get money - which they may not have.

> but were very quick to
> threaten me with fines.

Don't have to prosecute you and they know you have money.

> So, the entire fence had to be painted.
> And repainted,  and again.
> And, the asshole city inspectors made threats,
> even after I had fixed it.  And would never
> answer their phones.  Assholes!!
>
> And now, many idiots in the city government
> are saying they do not believe in the
> "Broken windows" Theory!  Idiots.

If it's legal you should paint over graffiti as quickly as possible to
discourage the taggots.

On 9/16/2021 4:05 PM, Al Czervik wrote:
> On 9/15/2021 8:41 AM, a425couple wrote:
>> On 9/14/2021 10:03 AM, Walt In Seattle wrote:
>>> Sometimes, graffiti can be artistic and is considered by the person

>
> Don't have to prosecute you and they know you have money.

That is exactly it.

>
>> So, the entire fence had to be painted.
>> And repainted,  and again.
>> And, the asshole city inspectors made threats,
>> even after I had fixed it.  And would never
>> answer their phones.  Assholes!!
>>
>> And now, many idiots in the city government
>> are saying they do not believe in the
>> "Broken windows" Theory!  Idiots.
>
> If it's legal you should paint over graffiti as quickly as possible to
> discourage the taggots.
>

Yes. But I lived about 10 miles away. I rarely
drove by the house. The tennant did not seem to care.
It became a pain in the but to initially paint.
Then repaint regularly.
Especially irritating, when the city threatened
me again for the tagging, which indicated it had
been retagged. So, I reorganized, and went to
repaint, but the place was just fine, wasted work.
But the damn city enforcers just assumed I
had not fixed it, and I was an easy touch to threaten.

But meanwhile, the city attorney refused to charge,
so the police gave up caring.