Anti Graffiti

The list of arguments for and against graffiti is endless.Graffiti protesters include numerous authority figures, politicians (such NYC mayor Giuliani and Chicago mayor Daley), web based groups (such as nograffiti.com), and various community members. Dissidents claim that graffiti in public areas disrupts and visually pollutes communities. Graffiti opposers claim that graffiti related vandalism costs the public millions of dollars per year to clean and control. People that oppose graffiti have started a wide chain of petitions to get bills turned into laws, and to say that it is a gateway crime.

The nograffiti.com website clearer states its mission statement: The NoGraf Network is an anti-graffiti company that is to contribute to the creation of safe and clean communities, the healthy development of youth, the improvement of quality of life, and the prevention of graffiti vandalism. Using web-based technologies, NoGraf will enable information exchange between individuals and groups involved in supporting these goals. Building upon the experience of NoGraf members, the Network will identify best practices, current issues, challenges, best graffiti removal techniques and courses of action, by facilitating and harnessing dialogue amongst professionals from the fields of law enforcement, prosecution, community-based organizations, abatement practitioners, educators, and vendors. NoGraf will promote civic participation as a dynamic and meaningful experience derived from focused participation in reducing the blight of graffiti vandalism, Thereby improving the quality of life for all citizens.

Graffiti vandals believe their actions harm no one. The reality is graffiti hurts everyone�homeowners, communities, businesses, schools, and you. And, those who practice it risk personal injury, violence, and arrest. "Graffiti contributes to lost revenue associated with reduced ridership on transit systems, reduced retail sales and declines in property value. In addition, graffiti generates the perception of blight and heightens fear of gang activity" reports the U.S. Department of Justice. The appearance of graffiti is often perceived by residents and passers-by as a sign that a downward spiral has begun, even though this may not be true. Patrons of buildings, parks, or public facilities where graffiti vandalism has occurred may feel that if graffiti is tolerated, then other more serious crimes, such as theft and assault, may also go unchallenged. In schools, 52% of public high schools and 47% of middle schools reported incidents of vandalism during the 1996-1997 school years. Data shows little difference between cities, towns, and rural areas. Additionally, about 36% of students saw hate-related graffiti at school. Although the cost of graffiti vandalism in the U.S. has yet to be definitively documented, for many communities, private property owners, and public agencies the cost is rising each year. Figures from a variety of cities across the U.S. suggest that graffiti cleanup alone costs taxpayers about $1-3 per person each year. For smaller communities the amount dedicated to graffiti cleanup annually may be less than $1 per person. A 2006 survey of the 88 cities, Caltrans and Metro in Los Angeles County on graffiti removal found the cost was about $28 million. With a population of close to 10 million, the per capita cost is about $2.80.With a population of just under one million, the City of San Jose, CA spent approximately $2 million in 2006 fighting graffiti. For communities with smaller populations, per capita costs are typically under $1.00. Pittsburgh, PA (population just over 300,000) spends around $350,000 annually for graffiti clean up. Omaha, NE spends about $100,000 a year on graffiti removal (population just over 400,000). In 2006, the Tennessee Department of Transportation spent more than $240,000 on removing graffiti along its roads and bridges.Denver, CO and Milwaukee, WI, with similar populations-just over 550,000-each spend about $1 million annually. This is a per capita cost of about $1.80. In Houston, TX (population just over 2 million), the city earmarked $2.2 million for cleanup of existing graffiti in 2006. Chicago, IL budgeted $6.5 million in 2006 for graffiti removal and Graffiti Blasters, the city's removal program (population a little over 2.8 million).This is a per capita cost of around $2.30. Las Vegas, NV with a population of about 1.7 million spends more than $3 million each year cleaning up graffiti.

In the UK, it is considered an Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) and subsequently is associated with crimes like mugging, begging, drunken disorder and criminal damage. This has created an idea in the public mind that graffiti is dangerous. The Home Office claim that people feel unsafe in areas covered with graffiti, one official described it as "visual mugging". The irony here is that most areas that have a high concentration of graffiti, usually lack the funds to clean it up and are typically places where there is already a high level of crime. It is also important to note that it was born in areas of New York and Philadelphia that were already very delapidated and dangerous; its practitioners usually poor and frustrated youth. Surely graffiti was artistist expression carried out by kids who had no other means to do such things.