New Haven Independent

Posted by: Anonyme | September 3, 2008 7:56 AM

One of the clowns at least almost rises above the level of complete idiocy but unfortunately is dragged right back down by the rest of circus.

I bet the collective IQ in that room almost peaked at average for that brief moment.

Posted by: cm | September 3, 2008 8:21 AM

why do we need new laws...we have laws on the books use the laws we have..
Alderpeople trying to pass an orindinace just to say there doing something...
Do something about taxes ...kids with guns...people getting robbed...car jacking.....
think and think hard......these kids will go to another town to buy the sray paint.....
wake up new haven...time to change the political circle....

Posted by: FairHavenLady | September 3, 2008 9:25 AM

Banning spray paint to minors.. meaningless. However as taxes continue to increase and city services continue to decrease at least this law will shift the burden to the city.

My house gets tagged at least twice a month and I pay an insane amount of money to remove it from my siding, so I am glad the city is taking a pro-active approach to removing graffiti cause we all know its not going anywhere. Hell, if my taxes continues to increase its nice to know I have at least there is ONE city service I can count on.

Posted by: Ben | September 3, 2008 12:04 PM

AOK, MOAB, SOLE/KAMA, RS are all in their mid to late 20's.
Can we make a law that if you have the maturity level of a 17 year old asshole, than you can't buy spray paint either.
On a side note, I'm glad to see that the responsibility remains on the city of New Haven. San Francisco puts responsibility on the building owner and it definitely does not work.
I have never seen a city where public and private property is so blatantly disrespected and uncared for. It looks like the city is sponsored by Krylon.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | September 3, 2008 2:11 PM

This is a waste of time,It should be made law on the state level, Do to the fact that you can go to another city or town and buy the spray paint that has no laws on the books,Also what will stop them from buying the paint in the can or permanent markers.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 3, 2008 2:36 PM

THREEFIFTHS

I do agree that on a state level this would have much more of an impact to the vendors that sell it. But for now this is the best we can do. Kudos to Andrea for catching that! This is a start people and fines should be alot more than fifty dollar, Destruction of property hmmm what does that cost on average. What does the city it self spend in time, labor and supply's to clean this up???

Bravo to everyone that made this happen.

Posted by: Heightz | September 3, 2008 2:45 PM

I agree Ben..

Bravo to the city to shift the responsibility off of the backs of their tax payers... Now if we can only reduce taxes and decrease crime then were talking!!!

Posted by: LastStraw | September 3, 2008 5:15 PM

AOK, MOAB, SOLE/KAMA, RS are all in their mid to late 20's.

Obviously, Ben, you have some inner knowledge. Why not contact the police department with this information? It sure beats complaining about it -- or have you subscribed to the Stop Snitching ethos as well???

Posted by: Ben | September 3, 2008 9:15 PM

I have communicated with Kama myself and we have an understanding that he will not be spray painting businesses any longer.
For the last month he has held to his word.
I have communicated with the police about all of these incidents and will continue to do so.
Proving something and knowing something are two entirely different things.
I absolutely call the police every time. Thanks for asking laststraw.
I am also going to continue to complain very vocally because destroying someone elses property is crap and it deserves attention from anyone who will listen along with the police.

Posted by: Ian C | September 3, 2008 10:52 PM

I like this law. I can't see kids who bike to walmart to get paint, taking the trek all the way up to North Haven to pick up spray paint, and if they do good for them for taking a long bike ride. Would be great if this initiative can get the attention of the state. Any kid who truly needs spray paint for their model cars for instance can have their parents pick up the color for them.

Posted by: Heightz | September 4, 2008 10:47 AM

"Connect Wit Kids" which is a parenting web site reports more and more kids are inhaling dangerous house hold products including spray paint to get high.

This law, which no one seems to be discussing will also help with this rising new statistic..

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | September 4, 2008 12:45 PM

Last Straw-- what is it with you and "stop snitching." First, you need to explain what the deuce you're talking about. I think I know, but others might not. In any case it has no relation to what's being said here.

This is a well intentioned ordinance that, like nearly every other ordinance is meaningless. Even if they put a million dollar fine on it the cops aren't going to do squat, even if they knew how.
They can't be bothered to enforce existing laws-- when they aren't breaking them themselves.

Our erstwhile board needs something to take its collective mind off the fact that it exists for no other reason than to smooch Johnny Boy's behind. Let them have their fantasies.

Posted by: Heightz | September 4, 2008 2:21 PM

Ellis, If I were you I think I might consider taking a walk to 165 church street, walk up the stairs to the second floor, or take the elevator if preferred and ask the legislative office a copy of the recently passed ordinance.

Then.......... you'll notice that the prohibiting of spray paint to minors, which is a great idea not just because of the tagging but because of the new statistics that prove more and more young people are using spray cans to inhale is NOT the only component of the ordinance. Matter of fact, after I researched it I noticed its not even the bulk of it. The bulk of the legislation is the fact the city (LCI) is shifting the responsibility from the homeowner and business owners to the city, which I might add already have a contract with sub-contractors to remove graffiti so in retrospect its not that HUGE of a financial burden for the city to remove it compared to struggling mom & pop businesses or homeowners who given our current nation-wide economic state have other expenses to worry about.

Once again another person who complains about something the media reports without digging up any real research.

Posted by: Nestor Makhno | September 4, 2008 6:20 PM

Teenagers in New Haven seem to be well-armed. If they can get their hands on guns, I would be surprised if they had a hard time tracking down spray-paint.

That "months of hard work" were spent on this admittedly "toothless" ordinance is kind of embarrassing unless you think burdening the city with the cost of graffiti removal is a good idea. Will this require a new line item in the next budget?

Posted by: Insider | September 6, 2008 10:58 AM

I think the general consensus is right, it is a toothless ordinance. What stops a kid from hopping on the D-bus and going to Hamden and buying the paint, or Milford. If the surrounding towns don't share this ordinace it's a waste of time and effort.

I also think that it should be State mandated that you have to be a certain age to purchase the spray paint, although I have seen 20 something year old taggers.