Graffiti

[ducati0000]

Why doesnt the city punish those selling the paint cans to these individuals rather "fine" the property owners for not removing it.This goes for the people who plaster the notes of poles and private property,fine the company that is advertising with it instead of hiring city cleaners scraping it off ever week.The downtown core looks awful,yes there is nice looking condos and stores but the filth in the lane ways and on the walls is terrible.

 

[JasonParis]

1. It's not illegal to buy paint nor should it be.

2. It's not illegal to poster on utility poles (although there are now some rules regarding "community postering.")

 

[junctionist]

It's to track down the individuals that commit the acts, though that's not say that attempts shouldn't be made. A common idea follows that if someone rigorously removes graffiti, eventually the vandals will give up. So, property owners have that crucial responsibility to keep their properties clean.

The postering companies are occasionally fined, but I agree that things could and should be done rigorously. I'm in favour of those designated pole structures for postering, until they show up it would be a shame to ban community posters completely.

 

[theman23]

Punish people for selling paint? Oh jeez. Frankly, I don't graffiti poses such a great threat to our society that we need to start banning paint.

 

[Hydrogen]

Maybe they should punish people for having walls, or fences, or...

 

[Roots_Energize]

1. Not everyone hates graffiti art like you do

2. The art adds to the eclectic mix of big urban cities everywhere

3. Let the artist have the laneways, theres enough dull grey bland spots around the city for those who enjoy that over graffiti

4. Dont be so uptight

 

[Erik T]

I'd like to add that most of the alley that runs along the south side of Queen Street features legal, sanctioned murals. Many are painted at one of the graff-writer events that happen in the summer.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Roots Energize: The cruelly limited fantasy life that so obviously spawns most of these visually derivative adolescent defacings can hardly be expected to generate "art", surely?

 

[TrickyRicky]

The vast majority of graffiti is not art, although we probably all agree that graffiti can be art. It is mostly low quality tagging sometimes with gang or implications in the drug trade. For those who are sympathetic to those producing the graffiti keep in mind the assymetry of the situation where a few dollars worth of paint or an etching tool translate into hundreds of if not thousands of dollars worth of damage. A contract to clean a low-rise commercial building will run you maybe $1000-$2000 dollars per year. The cost of replacing a small storefront window $500-600. I actually agree that the only way you can reduce graffiti (90 percent of which is embarassingly bad and not even worth considering art) is to go after the building owners because they are the only ones with the resources and incentive to take care of the problem. But this scenerio is certainly not fair.

 

[I-Z1]

go after the building owners because they are the only ones with the resources and incentive to take care of the problem

..because Toronto's police are incompetant, and uninterested in anything other then a paycheck?
What should the building owner do? Continuously spend money cleaning up after the little "artists" have tagged their names? The property owner has no right to actually catch, detain and press charges against the little "perp", so why bother?

 

[Hydrogen]

Building owners are not responsible for the vandalism done to their buildings; they are left to deal with the consequences of that vandalism.

..because Toronto's police are incompetant, and uninterested in anything other then a paycheck?

Why? Because they are not at all places at all times?

Responsibility for acts of vandalism lie with vandals. If a graffiti sprayer wants to spray paint on something, he or she can go buy their own surface to do it on. There's no reason why a building owner should be saddled with something that they never wanted in the first place - even when they inevitably get stuck with the costs associated dealing with it.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The city has a number you can call to have someone sent over to remove graffiti "art" on public property.

( 416 ) 39-CLEAN

 

[I-Z1]

Why? Because they are not at all places at all times?

Funny, you can always find a cop in a donut shop....at all times.

Responsibility for acts of vandalism lie with vandals.

Then we need to allow the property owners take appropriate measures to deal with it, since the cops can't be bothered to.

 

[junctionist]

Funny, you can always find a cop in a donut shop....at all times.

The law says that workers must have some kind of break.

 

[akridz]

it would probably just be smarter to pay a graffiti artist to do a nice piece that will not be tagged over, and you could get a new mural once every few years.

this will end up being cheaper for all parties.

it's also royalty free advertising if you're smart enough to tell the graffiti artist to do something related to your store to attract more business.

if you're not down with graffiti then you will ultimately be burned by it. in other words, if you can't beat em, hire em

by buffing a wall, you're just cleaning the canvas so to speak.