Saturday, April 09, 2011

Why you shouldn't report graffiti on private property to 311

I recently saw at the bottom of a City of Toronto ad a friendly little note saying "If you see graffiti vandalism in your neighbourhood, call 311."

Doesn't that sound helpful? After all, we all know that 311 is extremely helpful. So doesn't it sound like the nice 311 people will send some nice helpful city workers (maybe these guys?) to clean it up.

But it turns out that if the graffiti's on private property, you'll just be getting the property owner in trouble.

According to the City of Toronto website:

When City staff enforce compliance with the graffiti bylaw they try to provide owners with as many ways as possible to comply.

An bylaw officer will educate the property owner or occupant about the issue and require graffiti removal. The officer may issue written notice. The owner is given fixed time period that they have to comply (remove the graffiti), e.g. 72 hours. If the owner provides justifiable reason for not complying within an appropriate period of time (cannot paint when it is raining, freezing, etc.), the bylaw officer will adjust the complying period.

Note: If the property owner does not comply within the specified compliance period, the City will remove the graffiti and the cost will be added to the tax roll.


Therefore, if you report graffiti on private property, by-law officers will come and force the property owner to remove it promptly, and if they don't they'll be forced to pay for it.

The property owner is already the victim. They already know they have to get rid of the graffiti, and they're probably already trying to figure out how to clean it off or scrape up the money to get someone else to do it. Sending by-law officers around to nag them is unproductive, and, frankly, a dick move.

The City cleans up graffiti on City property, so reporting that is productive. But I would strongly recommend not reporting graffiti on private property. I'd much rather live in a city with graffiti around than live in a city where victims of crimes get nagged by law enforcement to recover faster.

2 comments:

laura k said...

Very good to know!

Personally, I wonder why anyone would report graffiti in the first place. But the City's response is, as you said, dickish.

Anonymous said...

Nonsense. If some vandal came by and smashed a window, the property owner would have to clean it up. Sucks for them that a thug smashed that window, but you can't just leave broken glass in the street. Likewise graffiti: the city sets property standards that owners must comply with, and has passed a by-law requiring that properties be kept free of graffiti. The reasons are simple: graffiti has a strong association with dereliction and abandonment. It suggest properties are not being properly maintained or cared for, and so tends to drive values down, street crime up and the thriving bustle of street life elsewhere as an area begins to look unsafe. Requiring that graffiti be removed promptly sends precisely the opposite message: this community is healthy, its properties are cared for, the street belongs to us, the people who live here, and not to lowlifes who creep around rooftops at night defacing the places we live and work. I feel badly for the property owners who get stuck with the bill. It'd be better if the thugs could be identified so the property-owners could sue them to recover the cost of the repair, but the effects of just letting them leave it there are much worse. So, in short, you're wrong.