Feature
by Mark Rutherford
For years, property owners and the public enjoyed an arrangement with the Department of Public Works (DPW) that required a simple yearly call to their graffiti hot line, resulting in the arrival of a paint crew, complete with a custom color matching system, to remove offending graffiti. Now, thanks to budget cuts, this service is no more. Today the crews are mostly restricted to repainting public property, and owners must do their own touchups or face abatement proceedings and hefty fees.
Last fall, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to amend Article 23 of the San Francisco Public Works Code. The new ordinance, signed by Mayor Newsom last November, gives DPW the authority to cite property owners and order them to remove graffiti within a 30-day notice period.
For owners who fail to act—either by removing the defacement or appealing the notice—DPW is now authorized to immediately enter your property and remove the graffiti. The minimum fee is $500, or the actual abatement costs, whichever is more. Plus, DPW is allowed to tack on administrative costs, overhead and attorney’s fees. A lien will be placed on the property of those who do not pay, and the mortgage holder will also be notified.
More than 500 notices were served in the first month alone, according to Mohammed Nuru, DPW’s deputy director for operations. According to the notice, those cited should contact DPW within 30 days and provide them with a statement and photographic proof that the graffiti has been removed. Excluded are murals and the like that are protected as works of fine art under the California Art Preservation Act or the Federal Visual Rights Act. “We’ve had good response,” Nuru notes, at “about 50 percent, with a few appeals.”
An owner may appeal. The burden of proof that the property contains graffiti falls on the city. Appeals must be in writing, specifying in detail the basis for contesting the notice, and the appellant must attend a hearing. Hardship is expected to be a common ground for appeal. In such cases, an owner must demonstrate that the property is “burdened with a disproportionate share of graffiti and vandalism based on frequency or extent, removal of which would constitute a hardship.” The elderly and disabled may also have a legitimate ground for appeal, said Nuru. A neutral party chosen from a department other than DPW ll hear the appeals. The verdict is final and cannot be appealed again. If the hearing officer finds a hardship, the director of DPW may detail a crew to remove the graffiti at the city’s expense, provided the owner signs a liability release.
If all else fails, aggrieved parties may seek judicial review under the California Code of Civil Procedures. DPW will also provide free paint to owners in exchange for a written agreement to remove the graffiti within 10 days.
The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) will continue to investigate graffiti as a crime. Property owners may report graffiti damage to police without the fear of being turned in to DPW, according to officer Becki Newman of the SFPD graffiti detail. “We’re not trying to go after people that can demonstrate a hardship,” Newman said. “The city is going after the ones that just don’t care. And there’s many of those around.”
Police reports are a possible resource for those considering a hardship appeal, especially if it has been documented that the property is the target of a disproportionate amount of graffiti. “If this property has been continually tagged, and we have reports to that effect, then we would be able to supply documentation,” Newman said.
The legislation clearly defines graffiti as visual pollution that “exacerbates the degradation of San Francisco’s quality of life,” and is increasingly used by gangs to spread fear and should be removed as quickly as possible. What is not clear, however, is whether the new system—notices, appeals, abatement proceedings—is actually quicker or more economical than the old system when owners who maintained their buildings, were granted a free, once-a-year visit by the city’s DPW painters.
The Board of Supervisor’s Legislative Analysts conducted a comparative study, using San Jose’s blight eradication program as a base line. The study recommended a combined approach similar to the one employed by San Jose. “The anti-blight laws and their enforcement” according to one of the study’s conclusions, “can be found in one code and under one agency in San Jose. In contrast, San Francisco scatters codes and enforcement over many different departments.” The result, the study found, is that “whereas in San Jose residents have a one-stop shop for reporting and addressing blight problems, San Francisco residents often must spend an extensive amount of time and effort to figure out who has jurisdiction over which part of the blight problem they are reporting.” The new ordinance dodges this jurisdictional issue. As to costs, the amendment was not reviewed by the Budget Analyst and no DPW figures were available.
“It’s not about the money,” Nuru commented. “It’s a quality of life issue.” Graffiti incidents have increased by just under 18% since 2003, from 5,900 to 6,900, according to DPW. “My goal…the Mayor’s goal,” said Nuru, “is for this city to be 100% graffiti free.”
There are other changes. The hotline that was once used to request free paint-out service is now a tip line to report graffiti-tagged properties (415-558-5445). In addition, the city will encourage neighborhood watch groups to report owners who are slow in removing graffiti. The city is also pushing utility providers to remove graffiti from their equipment and installations within 48 hours.
“I think this ordinance will be an improvement, [for] it will address a lot of the owners out there who are not cleaning up the graffiti on their property,” Newman observed. “I mean, if someone sent me a notice telling me, hey, either clean it or you’ll be fined, I would clean it.” She explained that “once you start dipping into people’s pockets, they don’t like that.”
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of SFAA or the San Francisco Apartment Magazine. Mark Rutherford is a San Francisco-based freelance writer. Copyright © 2005 by the San Francisco Apartment Magazine. All rights reserved.