?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Finally!
New Ordinance Holding Taggers and their Parents Liable for Damages

Daily News Wire Services
Article Last Updated: 08/18/2008 12:56:55 PM PDT

An ordinance holding taggers and their parents liable for civil damages will be up for final approval Tuesday by the county Board of Supervisors.

The supervisors tentatively approved the ordinance last week and will go into effect in 30 days if approved tomorrow, county spokesman Brian Lew said.

The ordinance would allow the county to recover graffiti-related costs from the taggers themselves or their guardians.

For more news and observations about crime in Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley, check out Mean Streets, the Daily News' crime blog.

Supervisor Gloria Molina spearheaded the proposed law after a Pico Rivera grandmother was gunned down Aug. 10, 2007, when she tried to stop a graffiti vandal from defacing a wall near her home.

In response to the Pico Rivera killing, the county created a six-month pilot effort, known as the Vandalism Enforcement Team, which targeted taggers in Pico Rivera and the unincorporated area near Whittier. Between Jan.

6 and June 30, the team arrested 168 taggers who had caused an estimated $345,000 in damage, according to sheriff's Capt. Michael Rothans.

The average cost of removing or painting over graffiti is $552 per incident, according to Chief Executive Officer William Fujioka. The effort to nab a tagger has cost taxpayers about $665 per offender.

Violent crime in those areas also dropped, he said, and none of the suspects initially arrested were caught reoffending.


Source 2

Comments

( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
uninesix
Aug. 20th, 2008 02:49 am (UTC)
But.. i thought parents have always been liable for
their underage kids' actions? If not then this is good.
zeepinkopaque
Aug. 20th, 2008 09:54 pm (UTC)
Yes, parents are responsible for the actions of their children, but now we may have an enforced ordinance that will ensure reparation from the child or the guardians in question.

Personally, I am glad. This might encourage some children/parents to be more responsible with themselves or their children and their actions.
dressdncheckers
Aug. 20th, 2008 07:24 pm (UTC)
i just feel bad because alot of the taggers i know don't have parents who can afford to cover the costs of their children's discretions. but i guess monitoring their bedrooms and noting their "purchases" or possession of these items could help prevent it although not really because they'll find a way to get around their parents anyways.
zeepinkopaque
Aug. 20th, 2008 09:51 pm (UTC)
I can agree with you on saying that the situation your friends (taggers) are in is sad (the situation, being, not having parents) really sucks, I am sorry.

But if they are guilty of vandalizing property they should be reprimanded. It isn't fair to have vandalism on your wall just because a teen doesn't have a parent.

dressdncheckers
Aug. 20th, 2008 10:25 pm (UTC)
no, they HAVE parents, they are just incredibly poor and can't afford to clean up their children's stupid messes. i think the kids should maybe get harsher penalties and clean it up themselves or something along the likes.

im not going to get into the importance of parents being accountable for their children, because it's obvious. it's just really sad in some cases where the kids are so far gone that the parents have absolutely no control over their children for whatever reason.
zeepinkopaque
Aug. 21st, 2008 03:11 am (UTC)
yeah, it sucks that their parents are poor.

if i was their parent i'd smack them for giving their poor mother grief and make my child accountable for his stupidity.
dressdncheckers
Aug. 20th, 2008 10:30 pm (UTC)
and i'm really wondering why it should cost $552 to put some paint over some tagging on a wall. is that because of the cost of the paint and the worker who is fixing it? the graffiti removal people in my city have many cans of different colored paint and come over for 2 minutes with a paintbrush or paintroller and cover it up and move on. how does THAT come out to $552?

im really curious. it seems like an incredibly inflated cost unless they're literally replacing fences or things like that.
zeepinkopaque
Aug. 21st, 2008 03:10 am (UTC)
I don't know, maybe because:

-workmen wages: workmen or employees on payroll who fix vandalized wall

-administrative wages: administrative wages and their superiors who bill their hours to this particular reason (what a waste, huh! but administration is needed.)

-transportation: vehicles used by workmen

-fuel: gasoline, and jeez, isn't it expensive!

-supplies: paint, brushes, paint rollers, employee work clothes, et al. these supplies are not cheap or free.

-maintenance of equipment: sand blasters, supplies, vehicles used for transportation. yeah, these things are not free, and they go through wear and tear.

-insurance: health care for employees on payroll and vehicle insurance



perhaps a slew of things things that i cannot even think of right now. when you look at things in this light, it makes sense... yeah, it looks like it really may cost $552.00 to paint that wall after all.


(Anonymous)
Aug. 28th, 2008 04:45 pm (UTC)
graffity removal
I think you are right dressdnchecker they do only stop for about 2mins use paint brush or rollers and move on. I think it is to much money they are charging for. The only ones getting doing the graffity removal are the drivers only and the rest of the crew for free
zeepinkopaque
Aug. 28th, 2008 04:55 pm (UTC)
Re: graffity removal
Did you read what I typed? You don't have anything to support your answer.

At least my answer makes more sense.
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )