New Haven Independent

Posted by: Anonyme | July 15, 2008 12:50 PM

"GRAFFITI -Any inscription, word, figure, painting or other defacement that is marked, etched, scratched, sprayed, drawn, painted or engraved on or otherwise affixed to any surface of public or private property by any graffiti implement, to the extent that the graffiti was not authorized in advance by the owner or occupant of the property, or despite advance authorization, is otherwise deemed a public nuisance. This Chapter shall not be construed to prohibit easily removable chalk markings on public sidewalks and streets used in connection with traditional children's games.

GRAFFITI IMPLEMENT -Any aerosol paint container, broad tipped indelible marker, gum label, paint stick or graffiti stick, etching equipment, brush or other device capable of scarring or leaving a visible mark on any natural or manmade surface.
"

I assume all of those stickers on every post, pole, and sign are included? Maybe local shops and businesses will send out some employees to clean them up? It's not like it's hard to figure out where the stickers are coming from when there's a name and number right on them. Devils gear comes to mind.

Before the buses cross into the city will every minor be searched for spray paint purchased in Hamden or Wallingford or Woodbridge, etc...?

This is pointless. It barely even qualifies as "feel-good" legislation. I know. It's symbolic, right? Like standing on a corner and holding a candle to keep 12 year olds from shooting each other? Same thing with this graffiti bull. Better search all delivered packages. These kids could be ordering the stuff online. Maybe break out some paint-sniffing dogs. Make like Boston and instead of asking parents if the cops can search their kids rooms for illegal guns ask to search them for paint? Par for the course of idiocy you're all playing on.

Stupid, stupid New Haven. A city of homicidal clowns crippled by their own stupidity. Too much lead in the paint?

I have keys. They can etch. Graffiti implement? According to this they are.

Posted by: jdavis | July 15, 2008 1:47 PM

nice job new haven! i am also happy to hear that tags are getting cleaned up in a timely fashion. i think it should be a state law, not just a city ordinance, but we can work up to that!

Posted by: NewHaven1 | July 15, 2008 1:58 PM

Anonyme - A simple case of someone who is fed up with everything in life and has nothing good to say about anyone else, if so then move!

I live in fair haven and have seen first hand the graffiti which plagues our community. Bravo to our alders who are taking a pro-active step to fixing the problem. As they said "one step at a time" - Good luck.

Posted by: Ben | July 15, 2008 2:52 PM

Kudos to Gary Hogan and Town Green Clean Team for a job truly well done.
The tag in the photo above has already been removed:
http://www.seeclickfix.com/issues/490

I know first hand that the most prolific vandals are well above the age of 18, so unfortunately an age prohibition may be a waste of time.

Responsible vendors like Channel 1 already ID customers buying Urban Art Supplies.

Those who destroy property need to understand that every tax payer's dollar they waste is one that could have been spent on services for the homeless or at the least desperately needed road repair.

There's absolutely no excuse for "Adults" to be causing this burden.

Posted by: anon | July 15, 2008 2:54 PM

There is a cost involved in removal. It would be nice if the taggers knew that each time they tag something, they take away a few textbooks from the other kids, or a few homeless shelter spots from the city's homeless population.

Posted by: Defender | July 15, 2008 3:08 PM

The continual presence of gangs will be the primary factor of graffiti in most sections in New Haven. The ordinance will do nothing to stem the "TAGGING" which, in part, is used by gangs as a method to negatively communicate with their "RIVAL GANGS."

If city hall was really interested in combating the city's graffiti blight they would have the police department concentrate their efforts in the removal of gangs instead of the "REMOVAL OF SPRAY PAINT FROM MINORS."

Once again, our misguided politicians composing ordinance without a real base of knowledge on the subject or even a thought on how to enforce such useless law.

Posted by: Zach | July 15, 2008 3:12 PM

Good job New haven. Its good to hear that people are beginning to care about the appearance of the city. When I travel, I see a place that looks nice and clean and I say, "This would be a nice place to live." Now, with a cleaner looking city, people will feel the same way when visiting New Haven. The spray paint ban will do nothing but good for the city.

Posted by: qriver Res | July 15, 2008 7:40 PM

Great Law.. I also feel this should be a state law. The only reason I had spray paint as a child was to paint model cars with. Any kid truly needing spray paint can have an adult pick it up for them. Spray paint is just too cool and too much fun in the hands of those who don't understand the impact of damage it has. I'm all behind this and hope this law spreads quickly to other towns as well.

Posted by: Nestor Makhno | July 15, 2008 9:45 PM

I would like to see considerably more graffiti in New Haven. Newly-thriving neighborhoods in great cities such as Ostiense in Rome, Kreuzberg in Berlin, Bushwick in Brooklyn are covered with graffiti. Tags, stencils, wheat-pasted posters signify a vital street life (and rising property values). While not having a large enough population to ever be cosmopolitan, New Haven could at least aspire to be the Christiania of New England.

Posted by: -fairhavener- | July 15, 2008 11:08 PM

Nestor, there is a big difference between Ostiense in Rome, Kreuzberg in Berlin, Bushwick in Brooklyn and New Haven. Please don't make me point it out.

Actually, I will, in small part:

"emty klips" (written in spray paint, poorly planned and executed at Grand Ave and Front St, now erased, thankfully).

Do we need to compare and contrast Rome, Berlin, and Brooklyn vs New Haven in further detail to make the point clear? Do you really think it was graffiti that made property values increase in Rome, Berlin, and Brooklyn? Have you noticed the difference in the quality of graffiti in Rome, Berlin, and Brooklyn vs New Haven?

I have seen some great graffiti, none of which has been in New Haven. When it begins to look more like an art and less like childish chicken scribble, then, maybe, it may be cool. Then, maybe, I will have some type of argument against the city for taking (what is now appropriate) action.

BTW, the last thing we need is another "Christiana". I think Blue Laws are enough.

Posted by: David Streever | July 16, 2008 9:54 AM

A family (I think) did a beautiful mural on their wall over on Lawerence street, near State.

I'm with Ben: it's really the ADULTS who make ugly, stupid, infantile grafitti that have to go. I don't understand why they do it, some left-over rebellious streak? Grow up! I don't think there are that many 15 year olds doing it, but I am ok with the ban, if 15 year olds aren't buying it already, well, who cares.

Posted by: sandstorm | July 16, 2008 11:25 AM

What about all of the "tags" on the new
ATT utility boxes around town. They were no sooner
installed than vandalized with spray paint and
it looks terrible.

Posted by: Ben | July 16, 2008 7:43 PM

I passed the att graffiti tickets from seeclickfix onto att today and they assured me that they will be removed.

Definitely report them if you see them.

Posted by: aaron | July 17, 2008 1:53 AM

FYI a huge amount of spray paint is purchased from dollar stores, e.g. the one on whalley across from staples

Posted by: Nestor Makhno | July 17, 2008 1:55 AM

Family done or not, that mural on Lawrence Street is an unwitting expression of a neighborhood in decline and an ersatz version of the mural at Troupe School, the one that Paul praised to the heavens. (However, it lacks both politics and craft.) The Troupe mural is at least historically significant in that it captures a time when the Federal government was useful and almost proactive. The mural on Lawrence Street is comparable to privatizing Social Security. (Streever, although I doubt you can distinguish Tevano from Campagnolo, perhaps you should focus on cycling issues.)

At any rate, the State Street graffiti shown in the picture seems innocuous compared to the surrounding conditions. First off, the buildings (both in good shape, one nearing beautiful) between Trumball and Bradley have been left for dead. The flyers posted on the facade say they are slated to be torn down. If these slumlords/investors do not care about the property, who cares about a little graffiti? Second, as far as public space goes, historically freeway overpasses have been used almost oppressively: at minimum they de-concentrate the population and create a "no man's land." More egregiously, they divide neighborhoods, typically ones that are black.

As far as graffiti, on State Street there was literally not a single fellow pedestrian from Crown Street until Bradley Street this evening around 9:30pm. As it is a dead avenue, I suggest kids, so-called puerile adults and gangsters tag away. It can only be for the better.

Posted by: David Streever | July 18, 2008 1:06 AM

Nestor,

Not only do I know what Tevano and Campagnolo are (I built my bike you rude little man) but I actually know what graffiti is too.

They had permission to paint a mural, therefore, it is not graffiti. Get your Websters or your Oxford or your whatever out & educate yourself.

I'm glad you know the difference between Tevano and Campagnolo, but really, master english first. It's not hard: dictionaries are cheap, easy to come by, and organized alphabetically. You'll seem like less of a tool, too, if you spend less time talking about vintage bike parts and more time alone, reading, resisting the urge to make ad hominem attacks on the internet.