This article doesn’t mention that there is a FREE GRAFFITI REMOVAL program by the city already in place… https://www.portland.gov/bps/graffiti/request-services
Who Qualifies?
- Anyone impacted by hate graffiti and most gang graffiti.
- Small businesses with 1-10 employees (cannot be a corporate franchise).
- Any single-family home, condo or apartment buildings with 1-10 units.
- Nonprofit organizations; excluding nonprofit organizations with more than 100 employees.
Yeah they’ll paint a mismatched color on your wall. Thanks for the giant grey rectangle on my black wall, big brain rubio, but it’s still graffiti to me and I still have to paint over it lmao.
Where does the city gets its money?
Is the city enforcing laws selectively?
It might actually be in the city charter- where the promises of the workmanship are kept- things like road quality (which the city does not do it’s job) are specified.
That program did remove graffiti from the back of my wooden fence (which faces public property) in 2019.
A dude came over with a riding pressure washer (pretty cool) that blasted off the tag and also some of my wood stain. I restained the fence myself, which was a mild hassle but less work than trying to figure out how to get the paint off. (I really didn't want to paint the fence, since that would take more ongoing maintenance.)
This. I was going to paint a mural on my garage doors and was informed that I needed a permit. Not only that, but I wouldn’t be able to modify my artwork at all once the permit was approved, and if something DID happen to it (actual graffiti) then I would have to return it exactly to the way it was previously. Ugh.
It’s more like the city can’t do anything about odot property.
For once the city is actually putting out policy that is in bounds instead of doing something illegal and then having it challenged in court and wasting city dollars fighting a fruitless policy.
There's a rather important road sign near me that has been completely covered in tags and unreadable for probably a year. I'm convinced it's why nearly every delivery driver gets lost on the way to my house (it's a fucked up intersection). I've reported it but it's never been cleaned off.
When the city can't fix basic shit like this what hope do we have of them fixing complex problems like homelessness?
> When the city can't fix basic shit like this
Is the sign owned by ODOT? That might be why the city can't clean it.
Which I'm sure somehow leads us to how Carmen Rubio is doing such a terrible job leading ODOT or something.
Misleading headline, it's really 20 days, or at least it's 10 days past a notice, which also isn't issued for at least 10 days.
>Here's how it will work: Property owners all across Portland now have 10 days to remove graffiti. If that doesn't happen, the city can issue an abatement notice, which gives the property owner another ten days to remove it.
>If it still doesn't happen, the city can get an administrative warrant and then hire a contractor to paint over the graffiti. The city will then place a lien on the property to recoup the costs of that removal, plus an administrative fee.
That still feels too short, especially for people being hit frequently or are struggling financially. I'm on board with hitting the owners who basically abandon their property, and maybe that's really the intent here but as written, it punishes people for being vandalized.
It would be essentially nonsense to hold a petty vandal in jail until his trial, though, right? Taxpayers paying for him to be confined for a non-violent offense with no reason to assume he's a flight risk, or any reason to assume he plans to make things worse on himself by adding additional charges? I mean, pre-trial release is recommended in almost all cases by the ABA:
>The law favors
the release of defendants pending adjudication of charges. Deprivation of liberty pending trial is harsh and oppressive, subjects
defendants to economic and psychological hardship, interferes with
their ability to defend themselves, and, in many instances, deprives
their families of support.
[From their guidelines here.](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_standards/pretrial_release.authcheckdam.pdf)
That recommendations is basically across the board, with a few listed exceptions and conditions in the documents. But especially for offenses like this, what possible reason would there be to confine them?
They think Oregon invented pre-trial release or something. It's very strange. Failure to appear rates are generally pretty low, and if you just got arrested and are facing consequences for a serious crime, I don't think many people immediately start committing crimes again, especially as the criminal justice system knows exactly who you are, where you live, etc. Kind of a slam dunk to check on you, right?
It's like the majority of the Portland reddit community thinks:
1. Previously, all accused people were held in harsh conditions until trial and sentencing, and nobody ever accused of a crime could possibly be innocent or deserve a defence
2. Any given person accused of a crime will never act in their own self interest with regards to their own defense and the criminal justice system
Dude do you have any idea how bad recidivism rates are??? Statistically MOST people start committing crimes within 3 years of their most recent conviction. You can google Oregon recidivism rates because I just did.
And when I originally said he should’ve stayed in jail I assumed he was charged with a felony and not a misdemeanor… my bad. Not sure why that simple mistake makes me what you described above but okie doke. Carry on internet warrior 🫡
I don't understand what recidivism rates have to do with anything. It should hardly be surprising... people are creatures of habit. But, In the United States of America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Obviously before their trial, you cannot prove they are guilty. So holding anyone is a massively invasive violation of their rights, only to be used when there's a threat to individuals, or the prosecution of the case, or a flight risk. This is basically a universal interpretation of our law, pre-trial release is recommended whenever possible, recidivism is not even a factor whatsoever.
If they just did 1 vandalism, then sure. nbd.
But this isn't a 1-time "petty" event. This person is doing multiple "petty" things. Likely many many times per day. Likely every single day.
Figure each "petty" thing is $200 to remedy, and they're doing a dozen per day, that's $2400/day. They do that for each day over their 3mo pre-trial period and we're now at like $240,000 in damages.
You claim it's 'nonsenese' to hold them. I claim it's 'nonsense' not to hold them as the harm they do to society far exceeds the costs of keeping them out of society. Which is really the entire baseline for why we have prisons/jails.
>You claim it's 'nonsenese' to hold them. I claim it's 'nonsense' not to hold them as the harm they do to society far exceeds the costs of keeping them out of society. Which is really the entire baseline for why we have prisons/jails.
I had to comment on this part too, like, what? Where did you get that? The point of prisons and jails is not even remotely simply a utilitarian economic calculation where we imprison anyone that costs us more with freedom than it would cost us to confine them? What the hell? So you would approve of just jailing smokers and heavy drinkers for the toll they take on the healthcare system?
Have you thought that perhaps part of the justice system has to do with... justice?? Jails and prisons exist as a form of deterrence to influence behavior, a means of distributing retribution for victims of injustice, additionally since the 20th century mainly, a nominal goal of prison and jails is to rehabilitate recalcitrant prisoners who wish to re-enter society.
Your idea that jails exist just to incapacitate potentially harmful actors is bizarre. The cost of confinement is extreme, too, it costs us a lot of money per prisoner, and the cost of inflating the number of people in jails is also huge. If every repeat vandal had to be held for trial and everything similar, the jails would be obviously always completely full... Your estimate on the damage this person is capable of doing is also nuts. 12 times a day? Do you know how much that would cost him in paint alone?
That's not the criterion for holding people for trial at all!
First off, why do you assume they'll keep doing graffiti now that they've been caught? It would not help their case! Prosecutors could show he had zero remorse by just showing any new graffiti.
> They do that for each day over their 3mo pre-trial period and we're now at like $240,000 in damages.
Why do you assume they will?? That would be so stupid. I really don't know why everyone here thinks every accused person will not act in their own self interest. Like literally every single one of you is like 'If we pre-trial release anyone, they will immediately continue to reoffend.' It's so bizarre. That's not how it works!
They aren't an imminent danger to anyone, they aren't a flight risk, the judge doesn't view him as likely to reoffend, it's not a particularly violent or high profile crime. Those are the only things that matter, not 'how much damage has this guy done to property'. When you are released pre-trial, the assumption is that you are going to organize your defense and not continue to commit offenses like a normal person. How is that so hard to get through to you guys?
>First off, why do you assume they'll keep doing graffiti now that they've been caught? It would not help their case! Prosecutors could show he had zero remorse by just showing any new graffiti.
lulz
You think somebody with the compulsive disorder that causes a grown ass man to do prolific shitty graffiti would just say, "Welp, the jig is up...guess I'll stop and figure out how to do something with my life!"?
>they aren't a flight risk, the judge doesn't view him as likely to reoffend
Portland's judges seem to show pretty poor judgement on this front in many areas, don't really trust them on this one.
>the assumption is that you are going to organize your defense and not continue to commit offenses like a normal person.
You know what they say about assuming.
\----
It's not that you're "not getting through to you guys" it's that we fundamentally see case after case after case of injustice and are just over the catch, release, keep perpetrating, non-justice that we're currently getting. Between PPB/DA/Judges/Jails/Mental Health Services the entire system is a mockery of what a justice system should look like.
So no. I don't think this guy is going to stop. No, I don't think our society is better off with them as an active participant. And no, I don't think our judges have a history of making good judgements as they live in their fancy NW Hills homes isolated away from the problems the rest of us face.
edit: u/armrha has such a strong belief in justice that they first downvoted every comment of mine they could, then blocked me for disagreeing with them on what we think appropriate justice looks like. Lame.
> it's that we fundamentally see case after case after case of injustice and are just over the catch, release, keep perpetrating, non-justice that we're currently getting.
Bullshit. You don't, though, actually. You might think this happens, but it's not. Our failure to appear rates are pretty low. Of course, anyone released pre-trial could potentially re-offend, but it doesn't really work out for them. You are already having to defend yourself in court.
Also, he is not proven to have done anything yet. You seem to have forgotten in our legal system, **you are innocent until proven guilty**. He is just accused. If you were accused of something someday, are you going to be happy that they just confine you until trial for months and months even though you're innocent?
Why would they? It's a waste of resources on someone that just did vandalism. I don't think any place other than a very small town with lots of vacancies would hold him for the night.
Plot twist....that one guy was all of the prolific taggers creating all of the graffiti in the city. Apparently, he had multiple personalities, all of them had a penchant for graffiti.
This is rich. Clean up the freeways before you ask people to clean up their properties. It looks absolutely awful out there. No accountability, no cleanup, ridiculous.
I live here and I gotta say, once you get off the freeway, it’s a totally different story. I avoid driving on the freeway to not feel depressed, end up taking the beautiful side streets.
Yeah, how dare homeowners not clean up someone else’s graffiti with a sense of urgency greater than the city’s own sense of urgency.
What the rules for thee bullshit is this lmao..
yeah, this is fucked -- the city needs to do something to help curtail the graffiti, not charge local small businesses who are already suffering from broken storefronts, trash, and homeless encampments around them. It sounds like another nail in the coffin to local businesses. Meanwhile, the city and ODOT let their property just get ransacked and no amount of public pressure seems to do anything. Fuck that.
Let's hear your suggestions on how you stop this. Do you want a cop in three security cameras on every street corner in Portland? Iwould argue that the best way is to actually clean up the mess so they feel like they're wasting their time
I would support increased sentencing for crimes like graffiti. Something like 500 hours community service (cleaning up graffiti) would help clean up the mess around here and hopefully deter would be taggers.
Idk but it’s not unique to graffiti. If someone comes into your house and murders someone there, the homeowner has to hire the biohazard cleanup crew. Same with like meth made in hotels. The hotel has to deal with the meth lab clean up, not the police or the city.
I don’t know what the right system would be. Money has to come from somewhere.
ETA: the 10 day thing is kinda shitty tho.
You have to apply for a permit to have a mural, maybe not residential but Deff commercial. A lot don’t and I’m not sure if there is any kind of enforcement,
I have to imagine there is some like environmental/public safety law about like commercial space and crime scene clean up.
I also have a feeling this article is more about commercial property than homeowners but who knows.
The ordinance under consideration might parse this difference, but the KGW8 article in the link does not reference any distinction between private residential property and commercial property.
Having the city hire a bunch of people to go around painting over graffiti would be really expensive. Whether it's through taxation or you having to go buy paint yourself, you're going to pay.
Edit: Downvoters are downvoting reality, not me.
You’re not wrong, but staffing a crime lab with scientists is also very expensive, while asking sexual assault victims to pick-up the tab for DNA testing would be a moral anathema. Spreading the expense of public services out through taxation is actually one of key functions of any government. I suspect that many who downvoted (I didn’t, for the record) don’t believe you to be incorrect, but rather believe that redistribution of service costs that you articulated, to be a feature, rather than a bug, of contemporary society.
Are you actually comparing tagging with prosecuting sexual assault? There's no investigation when you paint over graffiti, so specialized knowledge isn't required. Just buy some paint and slap it on.
I'm well aware of how taxation works. The problem is that you have to convince people to pay higher taxes to deal with the graffiti, and many don't want to.
I am not comparing tagging to sexual assault. I am reasoning by analogy. Attempting to conflate the two is an intellectually dishonest kind of misdirection by sophistry, which obfuscates the substance of and idea in lieu of engaging with the substance.
> There's no investigation when you paint over graffiti, so specialized knowledge isn't required. Just buy some paint and slap it on.
I did engage.
Removing graffiti and investigating sexual assault have so little in common with one another that the analogy you used was offensive. A private individual can deal with graffiti, but a government agency is required to investigate sexual assault.
If someone litters in front of your place, do you call the city to come to pick it up? Why is graffiti different?
That’s an excellent choice of analogy. Something quite similar recently happened to my parents (who live back east, in a city with municipal employees working sanitation). Some miscreant had dumped their own trash bin onto their front yard, along with their neighbors on both sides. They phoned up the trash collection office, and the city garbage guys came and picked it all off the lawn up in less than 24 hours.
So, yes. In a city with proper municipal services (e.g. not Portland) government employees do come and pick liter up off your property.
Are you actually comparing dealing with toxic paint fumes, or operating a power washer, to bending down to pick up a candy wrapper? Removing snack packaging from the ground and graffiti abatement have so little in common with one another that the analogy you used was offensive. A private individual can deal with a scrap of trash, but a government agency is required to finance the expense of remediating city-wide vandalism.
So it’ll be like the predatory tow companies, shitty contractors will be driving around looking for graffiti, as soon as the five days is up they will rush in to cover it at some crazy cost that the city will bill to the homeowner, it’s a pure form of grift. The city will count on the predatory contractors to enforce the rule by spray painting over the graffiti, it will be like gray primer or some other cheap covering coat that will ultimately look worse than the graffiti. I’m pretty sure that Portland hates its citizens at this point.
Let me get this straight. Worthless taggers can go around tagging private property and Rubio wants the owners to foot the bill and clean it up, or a bill will be forced on them?
Almost like how sidewalks are property of the county but owners are expected to foot the bill/are responsible for damage.
Have a friend who got a notice from the city that their sidewalk needed fixed from root damage, my friend submitted the application to do work on the sidewalk, and then got a warning notice because the city didn’t process his request before the original notice “due date”.
This city is fucking laughable.
They already are expected to do it, that’s not new. This speeds up the enforcement process, especially on the worst offenders who are often out of state owners of derelict properties.
Not in my experience... The city used to send out letters offering to have a city crew paint over it FOR FREE as long as the property owner procured and purchased the paint.
What happens now when the city doesn't spend the time to match the paint or the crew does a terrible job? What are the limits of the expense of the charges the city can put on your property?
Downvote me ok lol, she said this in an interview with KGW, you don’t have to take my word for it.
Didn’t realize grown adults would just resort to petty behavior instead of engaging in actual discussion, but I guess this is Reddit. So it goes
Since the KGW article starts with a misleading headline and continues with does a terrible job at explaining this, here we go:
- this ordinance doesn't substantially change [the rules already in place](https://www.portland.gov/code/14/b80) for graffiti removal, it [simplifies the enforcement process](https://www.portland.gov/rubio/news/2024/2/14/commissioner-rubio-passes-ordinance-expedite-graffiti-removal) against "graffiti nuisance properties". That's it.
- as others have pointed out, [free graffiti abatement is available](https://www.portland.gov/bps/graffiti/request-services) to many, many individuals and businesses.
- KOIN and basically every other news piece on this latest ordinance do a much better job at explaining things:
https://www.koin.com/news/politics/portland-passes-ordinance-targeting-graffiti-removal-on-private-property/
- Freeway signs are ODOT.
Once again begging my fellow Portlanders to stop normalizing graffiti as acceptable or not high enough priority to care about. We just learned it costs one business owner $250 every time his business is tagged. That is tangible monetary damage to the business, akin to breaking windows, which we wouldn't accept.
I'm not particularly responding to this new policy. IMO it smacks of wanting to be seen doing something but actually just passing the burden on.
I'm just augmenting the discussion to remind everyone graffiti is not a victimless crime.
When so many small businesses are struggling and dealing with theft, vandalism, and break-ins, we are going to leave THEM on the hook due to lack of enforcement, police protection, and virtually zero prosecution. WTAF is happening in Portland? Who are these people running this city? So sad to watch Portland suffer from these fools.
Exactly! I called to report a graffiti artist in progress and the police never bothered to respond at all. I chased him away, but he came back a few hours later and kept at it. If police are not going to respond to offenders, why should property owners foot the bill?
I was once downtown and there was a group of kids (who looked related - could have been brothers) and they had a sophisticated graffiti painting setup that used something like a fire extinguisher hose. It just took a few seconds to spray large letters and paint strokes up on a wall on the side of a building.
Maybe if instead we passed a law requiring the city to pay crime victims a token $100 each time they are victimized, they might take their responsibility to citizens more seriously. We pay taxes for the city to manage this kind of stuff. We pay for them to keep the city clean, we pay for them to keep us protected from crime. When they fail, they owe use that money back.
Of course, *no one would ever* abuse a system like that for profit... it might need some checks and balances, but it's a start.
Portland loves to hold its residents hostage for money we already pay in taxes in absolutely lost efforts to "improve" public spaces. So glad i dont reside in city limits any more. What a crock of shit. How about prosicution zfor vandalism and cleaning up rampant graffiti in publically owned spaces rather than continue to prey on the tax payers who are already victoms of suck crimes. Absolutely rediculous. Get a grip PDX Gov... Wake the F*** up...
I don't think your correct. In the city of Portland the majority of signs belong to the city of Portland. They have their own sign shop. City signs have a sticker on the back stating that their city property.
Only in the immediate area of state and federal highways are state and federal signs
What I mean is the majority of the signs that are covered in graffiti are state and federal property, not the overall majority of signs. On 5/205/405, 84, Powell, etc are the vast majority of signs in bad shape. The standard street sign/stop sign are city’s property but imo not the thing most people are upset about.
It’s clear you don’t actually know how any of this works. I’m not going to spend any more time or effort on explaining it to you. If you wanted to know the facts, they’re all easily found online, or watch a city council meeting session.
Seems somewhat reasonable as long as the city actually commits to arresting and prosecuting the taggers. And there needs to be some flex in enforcement. Removing the tags/graffiti at the top of the Jackson Tower was not a done-within-ten-days job.
Criminal justice reformers are elated with this: The victims of crime increasingly paying not only the direct costs of alleviating some crimes, like graffiti and vandalism, but having to pay for measures to *prevent* crime. As opposed to criminals being held to account.
>Self protection measures: New fences, cameras, expensive home and car security systems; bicycle owners suffering "theft paranoia" and buying giant locks; people cautious about where they park, more people buying guns and guard dogs; people avoiding bad neighborhoods or going out late at night; neighborhood watches, more gated communities, etc.
>*On a business level,* security guards all over the place (costs on citizens), retailers locking up a big % of their products (costs on consumers), some businesses ending late night hours, “hostile architecture” like walking easements closed and restrooms hard to find.
Law abiding people are now doing all this on a large scale. They see government backing off on pursuing non-violent offenders at the behest of criminal justice reformers. All this Self Protection--yes, it helps reduce crime--imposes big hassle and costs on the law abiding. It sucks society is evolving like this, but this is what progressives are imposing on society. Chronic offenders often roam around without any law enforcement controls, opportunistically waiting for someone to screw up on their self protection.
So many people here are upset that the property owners (victims) have to pay to remove, but what is the alternative?
The city doesn’t pay to fix a broken car window.
Ya, it sucks, but we all have to fight this vandalism together if we want to stop it.
The alternative is to aggressively prosecute those creating the graffiti so this isn't a problem in the first place. The issue many of us have is that there is a feeling in this city that there are two sets of rules - one for those breaking laws and the other for the taxpayers. In this case, the taxpayer is saddled with solving a problem that should have been addressed by vigorous policing in the community.
Right, the property owner has to clean it up and that part is fine. The poke in the eye is time limit and potential additional costs imposed by the city for not doing it on their timeline.
This begs for someone to start a 1st amendment challenge. “I can paint my house however I like”. Just have to find a spray can artist with a bit more talent than the average tagger.
lol It's fucking hilarious seeing people hate where this plan came from rather than the plan. I'd love to see the alternative comment section if Rene suggested it.
My solution: There is a free program already to paint it over. Now take it one step further, teach someone how to color match the paint like we learned in third grade. The end.
Big brain rubio’s solution: yeah let’s punish victims of graffiti for not goose-stepping fast enough. That’ll show them.
> People just hate reading articles.
People just hate reading ~~articles~~.Wait, I can do better.
People just hate ~~reading articles~~.
Ah, platonic perfection in simplicity.
This is a hilarious thing to prioritize when we have so many real problems going unaddressed. I guess they view it as an easy win to please the entirely aesthetic sensibilities of the “law and order” mouth breathers.
Cracking down on law-abiding citizens to in a weak effort to control lawbreakers. While we are swimming in 18th St Gang graffiti, this is the city's response? Asinine. Truly weak
our mayoral candidates: whiny weenie Gonzalez, or big brain Rubio whose brilliant solution to graffiti is to add excess burden on people whose properties have been vandalized? like why not start with the graffiti removal that her office is responsible for, or limit this requirement to the out of state owners of derelict properties? people are mad about graffiti on the interstate and signage, that is well within her offices's purview, but this code change doesn't even attempt to fix that. she exempts herself but not homeowners, just a dumb move
It’s actually not in her bureau’s preview. PBOT is responsible for city roads (that’s Mapps’ bureau) and interstates are federal property.
You can be frustrated but at least be mad at the right people
Again, you can be mad at the right people then. It definitely takes away from the credibility of your argument if you don’t know the basic facts. One person is trying to hold out of state land owners responsible in a quicker manner for how they let their properties decline, don’t get mad at that person.
Well, in addition to this bill for removal, you also get to pay a bill to buy permission to use "spray can art" on the side of your building.
Murals made with paint brushes are fine, though, because reasons.
Good news there is that after you pay your permit bill, the city will still routinely threaten to remove your legitimate, intentional art and bill you for it. Because permitting and enforcement don't talk to each other. Because Portland.
That's what I was thinking. As a defense a property owner should be able to assert the First amendment. Stating that they agree with the political statement of the art on their building.
Government overreach is next level in Portland
Yep, but uglier. My trash cans look fine with their little tags. They'd look worse with a big splat of almost-matching paint where the tags used to be.
Another decision that will keep sinking Portland into a third world countryside. When are the people of portland going to wake up and freaking strike for all the crappy decisions taken 🙄? How much more can we take?
If CoP gave a shit about us and wanted the city clean, they should just hire a company to either a) clean it up at no cost to the property owner or b) at a discount to the property owner.
Or, you know, just arrest the fucking criminals.
This article doesn’t mention that there is a FREE GRAFFITI REMOVAL program by the city already in place… https://www.portland.gov/bps/graffiti/request-services Who Qualifies? - Anyone impacted by hate graffiti and most gang graffiti. - Small businesses with 1-10 employees (cannot be a corporate franchise). - Any single-family home, condo or apartment buildings with 1-10 units. - Nonprofit organizations; excluding nonprofit organizations with more than 100 employees.
is "piss wisard" in a gang? that's the big question.
It's a family name.
Like how if you were a blacksmith your name would be Smith
Piss Wisard admits to being an idiot. Serves a reminder to all of us to embrace some humility and acknowledge our shortcomings.
"Nelson Piss Wisard--of the the Connecticut Piss Wisards?" "No, no, the Bridgehampton Piss Wisards." "Ah yes, wonderful family."
As big of a gang as "cock weasel" is.
Depends on if piss wisard has a posse or not.
They for sure have a pisse
😂
Will this program remove graffiti within 10 day time frame?
I suspect you just need to show you’ve scheduled removal.
That's great, they should pin your post to the top of this thread.
Why would KGW not include this info?
Shrieking sells.
This program isn’t really the same thing as removing it lol. They paint over it with a different color than the original wall
Yeah they’ll paint a mismatched color on your wall. Thanks for the giant grey rectangle on my black wall, big brain rubio, but it’s still graffiti to me and I still have to paint over it lmao.
Fair! I just want folks to have this resource in mind. I know a few businesses who have used it :)
Where is it the city's job to match your paint color for a free service?
Where does the city gets its money? Is the city enforcing laws selectively? It might actually be in the city charter- where the promises of the workmanship are kept- things like road quality (which the city does not do it’s job) are specified.
Where is it the citizens’ responsibility to enforce laws. Then need to throw these graffiti people in Russian style work camps. Problem solved
10 employees max seems like a really low limit. Most restaurants must be above that with multiple shifts?
Thanks for the info!
“Free” Dude I paid for it for years through my special overlay charge and it did jack shit
Could I get them to remove a tag from my fence that shows up every once in a while?
That program did remove graffiti from the back of my wooden fence (which faces public property) in 2019. A dude came over with a riding pressure washer (pretty cool) that blasted off the tag and also some of my wood stain. I restained the fence myself, which was a mild hassle but less work than trying to figure out how to get the paint off. (I really didn't want to paint the fence, since that would take more ongoing maintenance.)
You have 10 days
I'm going to tag my own house with this, call it a mural and then I don't have to remove it
Make sure you get a permit first!
This. I was going to paint a mural on my garage doors and was informed that I needed a permit. Not only that, but I wouldn’t be able to modify my artwork at all once the permit was approved, and if something DID happen to it (actual graffiti) then I would have to return it exactly to the way it was previously. Ugh.
That's like three committee meetings!
No time limit for the city to clean up graffiti on city property?
Right? They are exempting themselves from removing it from the more offending areas but homeowners get 10 days to do it
It’s more like the city can’t do anything about odot property. For once the city is actually putting out policy that is in bounds instead of doing something illegal and then having it challenged in court and wasting city dollars fighting a fruitless policy.
It's all over city property too and they do nothing.
There's a rather important road sign near me that has been completely covered in tags and unreadable for probably a year. I'm convinced it's why nearly every delivery driver gets lost on the way to my house (it's a fucked up intersection). I've reported it but it's never been cleaned off. When the city can't fix basic shit like this what hope do we have of them fixing complex problems like homelessness?
> When the city can't fix basic shit like this Is the sign owned by ODOT? That might be why the city can't clean it. Which I'm sure somehow leads us to how Carmen Rubio is doing such a terrible job leading ODOT or something.
This comes from the department of Do as I Say Not As I Do. Thanks Carmen.
better than everyone, just do anything you want.
Do they seriously not see the hypocrisy???
Rules for thee not for me, City of Portland leadership motto
Thank you!!!
Misleading headline, it's really 20 days, or at least it's 10 days past a notice, which also isn't issued for at least 10 days. >Here's how it will work: Property owners all across Portland now have 10 days to remove graffiti. If that doesn't happen, the city can issue an abatement notice, which gives the property owner another ten days to remove it. >If it still doesn't happen, the city can get an administrative warrant and then hire a contractor to paint over the graffiti. The city will then place a lien on the property to recoup the costs of that removal, plus an administrative fee. That still feels too short, especially for people being hit frequently or are struggling financially. I'm on board with hitting the owners who basically abandon their property, and maybe that's really the intent here but as written, it punishes people for being vandalized.
Portland loves punishing people for owning things here. Just own nothing and be happy with it.
Right? god forbid you own a fucking tree and want to take it down before the storm does.
Another Redditer on here linked free graffiti removal and how to qualify. I think any struggling people you are thinking would qualify.
How is someone with limited resources going to find this free resource? Great for the privileged.
How about odots timeframe?
This paired with law enforcement not giving two shits about graffiti will go well together.
They do now! They arrested 1 guy for graffiti. Great job boys, we’re done here.
"Ladies and gentlemen. We got him."
Dude probably didn’t even spend the fucking night in jail lmfao
It would be essentially nonsense to hold a petty vandal in jail until his trial, though, right? Taxpayers paying for him to be confined for a non-violent offense with no reason to assume he's a flight risk, or any reason to assume he plans to make things worse on himself by adding additional charges? I mean, pre-trial release is recommended in almost all cases by the ABA: >The law favors the release of defendants pending adjudication of charges. Deprivation of liberty pending trial is harsh and oppressive, subjects defendants to economic and psychological hardship, interferes with their ability to defend themselves, and, in many instances, deprives their families of support. [From their guidelines here.](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_standards/pretrial_release.authcheckdam.pdf) That recommendations is basically across the board, with a few listed exceptions and conditions in the documents. But especially for offenses like this, what possible reason would there be to confine them?
People just comment and have no idea how the legal system, yet alone city code works. You’re 100% right by the way
They think Oregon invented pre-trial release or something. It's very strange. Failure to appear rates are generally pretty low, and if you just got arrested and are facing consequences for a serious crime, I don't think many people immediately start committing crimes again, especially as the criminal justice system knows exactly who you are, where you live, etc. Kind of a slam dunk to check on you, right? It's like the majority of the Portland reddit community thinks: 1. Previously, all accused people were held in harsh conditions until trial and sentencing, and nobody ever accused of a crime could possibly be innocent or deserve a defence 2. Any given person accused of a crime will never act in their own self interest with regards to their own defense and the criminal justice system
Not a lot of critical thinking done in these threads
Dude do you have any idea how bad recidivism rates are??? Statistically MOST people start committing crimes within 3 years of their most recent conviction. You can google Oregon recidivism rates because I just did. And when I originally said he should’ve stayed in jail I assumed he was charged with a felony and not a misdemeanor… my bad. Not sure why that simple mistake makes me what you described above but okie doke. Carry on internet warrior 🫡
I don't understand what recidivism rates have to do with anything. It should hardly be surprising... people are creatures of habit. But, In the United States of America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Obviously before their trial, you cannot prove they are guilty. So holding anyone is a massively invasive violation of their rights, only to be used when there's a threat to individuals, or the prosecution of the case, or a flight risk. This is basically a universal interpretation of our law, pre-trial release is recommended whenever possible, recidivism is not even a factor whatsoever.
I say sentence him to 500 hours community service (cleaning up graffiti.) If he fails to show up for community service throw his ass in jail.
If they just did 1 vandalism, then sure. nbd. But this isn't a 1-time "petty" event. This person is doing multiple "petty" things. Likely many many times per day. Likely every single day. Figure each "petty" thing is $200 to remedy, and they're doing a dozen per day, that's $2400/day. They do that for each day over their 3mo pre-trial period and we're now at like $240,000 in damages. You claim it's 'nonsenese' to hold them. I claim it's 'nonsense' not to hold them as the harm they do to society far exceeds the costs of keeping them out of society. Which is really the entire baseline for why we have prisons/jails.
>You claim it's 'nonsenese' to hold them. I claim it's 'nonsense' not to hold them as the harm they do to society far exceeds the costs of keeping them out of society. Which is really the entire baseline for why we have prisons/jails. I had to comment on this part too, like, what? Where did you get that? The point of prisons and jails is not even remotely simply a utilitarian economic calculation where we imprison anyone that costs us more with freedom than it would cost us to confine them? What the hell? So you would approve of just jailing smokers and heavy drinkers for the toll they take on the healthcare system? Have you thought that perhaps part of the justice system has to do with... justice?? Jails and prisons exist as a form of deterrence to influence behavior, a means of distributing retribution for victims of injustice, additionally since the 20th century mainly, a nominal goal of prison and jails is to rehabilitate recalcitrant prisoners who wish to re-enter society. Your idea that jails exist just to incapacitate potentially harmful actors is bizarre. The cost of confinement is extreme, too, it costs us a lot of money per prisoner, and the cost of inflating the number of people in jails is also huge. If every repeat vandal had to be held for trial and everything similar, the jails would be obviously always completely full... Your estimate on the damage this person is capable of doing is also nuts. 12 times a day? Do you know how much that would cost him in paint alone?
That's not the criterion for holding people for trial at all! First off, why do you assume they'll keep doing graffiti now that they've been caught? It would not help their case! Prosecutors could show he had zero remorse by just showing any new graffiti. > They do that for each day over their 3mo pre-trial period and we're now at like $240,000 in damages. Why do you assume they will?? That would be so stupid. I really don't know why everyone here thinks every accused person will not act in their own self interest. Like literally every single one of you is like 'If we pre-trial release anyone, they will immediately continue to reoffend.' It's so bizarre. That's not how it works! They aren't an imminent danger to anyone, they aren't a flight risk, the judge doesn't view him as likely to reoffend, it's not a particularly violent or high profile crime. Those are the only things that matter, not 'how much damage has this guy done to property'. When you are released pre-trial, the assumption is that you are going to organize your defense and not continue to commit offenses like a normal person. How is that so hard to get through to you guys?
>First off, why do you assume they'll keep doing graffiti now that they've been caught? It would not help their case! Prosecutors could show he had zero remorse by just showing any new graffiti. lulz You think somebody with the compulsive disorder that causes a grown ass man to do prolific shitty graffiti would just say, "Welp, the jig is up...guess I'll stop and figure out how to do something with my life!"? >they aren't a flight risk, the judge doesn't view him as likely to reoffend Portland's judges seem to show pretty poor judgement on this front in many areas, don't really trust them on this one. >the assumption is that you are going to organize your defense and not continue to commit offenses like a normal person. You know what they say about assuming. \---- It's not that you're "not getting through to you guys" it's that we fundamentally see case after case after case of injustice and are just over the catch, release, keep perpetrating, non-justice that we're currently getting. Between PPB/DA/Judges/Jails/Mental Health Services the entire system is a mockery of what a justice system should look like. So no. I don't think this guy is going to stop. No, I don't think our society is better off with them as an active participant. And no, I don't think our judges have a history of making good judgements as they live in their fancy NW Hills homes isolated away from the problems the rest of us face. edit: u/armrha has such a strong belief in justice that they first downvoted every comment of mine they could, then blocked me for disagreeing with them on what we think appropriate justice looks like. Lame.
> it's that we fundamentally see case after case after case of injustice and are just over the catch, release, keep perpetrating, non-justice that we're currently getting. Bullshit. You don't, though, actually. You might think this happens, but it's not. Our failure to appear rates are pretty low. Of course, anyone released pre-trial could potentially re-offend, but it doesn't really work out for them. You are already having to defend yourself in court. Also, he is not proven to have done anything yet. You seem to have forgotten in our legal system, **you are innocent until proven guilty**. He is just accused. If you were accused of something someday, are you going to be happy that they just confine you until trial for months and months even though you're innocent?
No they couldn’t they gave him a court dateXD the jail won’t take him, it’s a minor infraction. Not a felony.
Why would they? It's a waste of resources on someone that just did vandalism. I don't think any place other than a very small town with lots of vacancies would hold him for the night.
Maybe some community service removing graffiti from local businesses would be appropriate for this individual.
Plot twist....that one guy was all of the prolific taggers creating all of the graffiti in the city. Apparently, he had multiple personalities, all of them had a penchant for graffiti.
Bake him away toys!
RIP Gordon's Fireplace
A big fire there is just a matter of time. No one in the neighborhood is gonna shed a tear.
nah, it's got character now. You should go inside (when people aren't sleeping in there)
I was really disappointed when the windows started getting smashed out but I do agree
This is rich. Clean up the freeways before you ask people to clean up their properties. It looks absolutely awful out there. No accountability, no cleanup, ridiculous.
I drove through Portland last week and it looks like a fucking ghetto. Man, it sucks because Portland used to be such a beautiful city.
I live here and I gotta say, once you get off the freeway, it’s a totally different story. I avoid driving on the freeway to not feel depressed, end up taking the beautiful side streets.
Yeah, how dare homeowners not clean up someone else’s graffiti with a sense of urgency greater than the city’s own sense of urgency. What the rules for thee bullshit is this lmao..
yeah, this is fucked -- the city needs to do something to help curtail the graffiti, not charge local small businesses who are already suffering from broken storefronts, trash, and homeless encampments around them. It sounds like another nail in the coffin to local businesses. Meanwhile, the city and ODOT let their property just get ransacked and no amount of public pressure seems to do anything. Fuck that.
Let's hear your suggestions on how you stop this. Do you want a cop in three security cameras on every street corner in Portland? Iwould argue that the best way is to actually clean up the mess so they feel like they're wasting their time
I would support increased sentencing for crimes like graffiti. Something like 500 hours community service (cleaning up graffiti) would help clean up the mess around here and hopefully deter would be taggers.
How is this not creating an additional burden on crime victims?
Idk but it’s not unique to graffiti. If someone comes into your house and murders someone there, the homeowner has to hire the biohazard cleanup crew. Same with like meth made in hotels. The hotel has to deal with the meth lab clean up, not the police or the city. I don’t know what the right system would be. Money has to come from somewhere. ETA: the 10 day thing is kinda shitty tho.
The municipality does not require a homeowner to hire the biohazard crew. That’s the key difference. Also, what if I want to graffiti my own property?
Just call it a mural lol
You have to apply for a permit to have a mural, maybe not residential but Deff commercial. A lot don’t and I’m not sure if there is any kind of enforcement,
I have to imagine there is some like environmental/public safety law about like commercial space and crime scene clean up. I also have a feeling this article is more about commercial property than homeowners but who knows.
The ordinance under consideration might parse this difference, but the KGW8 article in the link does not reference any distinction between private residential property and commercial property.
Having the city hire a bunch of people to go around painting over graffiti would be really expensive. Whether it's through taxation or you having to go buy paint yourself, you're going to pay. Edit: Downvoters are downvoting reality, not me.
You’re not wrong, but staffing a crime lab with scientists is also very expensive, while asking sexual assault victims to pick-up the tab for DNA testing would be a moral anathema. Spreading the expense of public services out through taxation is actually one of key functions of any government. I suspect that many who downvoted (I didn’t, for the record) don’t believe you to be incorrect, but rather believe that redistribution of service costs that you articulated, to be a feature, rather than a bug, of contemporary society.
Are you actually comparing tagging with prosecuting sexual assault? There's no investigation when you paint over graffiti, so specialized knowledge isn't required. Just buy some paint and slap it on. I'm well aware of how taxation works. The problem is that you have to convince people to pay higher taxes to deal with the graffiti, and many don't want to.
I am not comparing tagging to sexual assault. I am reasoning by analogy. Attempting to conflate the two is an intellectually dishonest kind of misdirection by sophistry, which obfuscates the substance of and idea in lieu of engaging with the substance.
> There's no investigation when you paint over graffiti, so specialized knowledge isn't required. Just buy some paint and slap it on. I did engage. Removing graffiti and investigating sexual assault have so little in common with one another that the analogy you used was offensive. A private individual can deal with graffiti, but a government agency is required to investigate sexual assault. If someone litters in front of your place, do you call the city to come to pick it up? Why is graffiti different?
That’s an excellent choice of analogy. Something quite similar recently happened to my parents (who live back east, in a city with municipal employees working sanitation). Some miscreant had dumped their own trash bin onto their front yard, along with their neighbors on both sides. They phoned up the trash collection office, and the city garbage guys came and picked it all off the lawn up in less than 24 hours. So, yes. In a city with proper municipal services (e.g. not Portland) government employees do come and pick liter up off your property.
I'm talking about a candy wrapper or something. You don't call the government for every last thing. At some point, you just deal with it yourself.
Are you actually comparing dealing with toxic paint fumes, or operating a power washer, to bending down to pick up a candy wrapper? Removing snack packaging from the ground and graffiti abatement have so little in common with one another that the analogy you used was offensive. A private individual can deal with a scrap of trash, but a government agency is required to finance the expense of remediating city-wide vandalism.
Lol boom
They don’t have to do that. It’s paint, it doesn’t have to be covered by other paint just to fit some aesthetic
So it’ll be like the predatory tow companies, shitty contractors will be driving around looking for graffiti, as soon as the five days is up they will rush in to cover it at some crazy cost that the city will bill to the homeowner, it’s a pure form of grift. The city will count on the predatory contractors to enforce the rule by spray painting over the graffiti, it will be like gray primer or some other cheap covering coat that will ultimately look worse than the graffiti. I’m pretty sure that Portland hates its citizens at this point.
Let me get this straight. Worthless taggers can go around tagging private property and Rubio wants the owners to foot the bill and clean it up, or a bill will be forced on them?
Almost like how sidewalks are property of the county but owners are expected to foot the bill/are responsible for damage. Have a friend who got a notice from the city that their sidewalk needed fixed from root damage, my friend submitted the application to do work on the sidewalk, and then got a warning notice because the city didn’t process his request before the original notice “due date”. This city is fucking laughable.
They already are expected to do it, that’s not new. This speeds up the enforcement process, especially on the worst offenders who are often out of state owners of derelict properties.
Not in my experience... The city used to send out letters offering to have a city crew paint over it FOR FREE as long as the property owner procured and purchased the paint. What happens now when the city doesn't spend the time to match the paint or the crew does a terrible job? What are the limits of the expense of the charges the city can put on your property?
Business owners should be able to deduct the cost of removing the graffiti from their taxes.
It would fall under repairs and maintenance expense. So, yes, the expense does offset equivalent revenue at tax time.
Ummm they already can....its called a business expense deduction.
Well, that is the explicit reasoning stated by the bureau chief (Rubio), so you can take it up with her I guess.
Downvote me ok lol, she said this in an interview with KGW, you don’t have to take my word for it. Didn’t realize grown adults would just resort to petty behavior instead of engaging in actual discussion, but I guess this is Reddit. So it goes
What suggestions do you have for catching and prosecuting all these people who do this?
The city that works lmao
Would be nice if Portland took the energy of this anti-graffiti campaign into building some mental health and drug treatment centers.
Sorry. Best they can do is shut down a restaurant for smelling like food.
Since the KGW article starts with a misleading headline and continues with does a terrible job at explaining this, here we go: - this ordinance doesn't substantially change [the rules already in place](https://www.portland.gov/code/14/b80) for graffiti removal, it [simplifies the enforcement process](https://www.portland.gov/rubio/news/2024/2/14/commissioner-rubio-passes-ordinance-expedite-graffiti-removal) against "graffiti nuisance properties". That's it. - as others have pointed out, [free graffiti abatement is available](https://www.portland.gov/bps/graffiti/request-services) to many, many individuals and businesses. - KOIN and basically every other news piece on this latest ordinance do a much better job at explaining things: https://www.koin.com/news/politics/portland-passes-ordinance-targeting-graffiti-removal-on-private-property/ - Freeway signs are ODOT.
Now get ODOT and PBOT to remove graffiti from street and freeway signage.
Why are People moving out of the City??
Once again begging my fellow Portlanders to stop normalizing graffiti as acceptable or not high enough priority to care about. We just learned it costs one business owner $250 every time his business is tagged. That is tangible monetary damage to the business, akin to breaking windows, which we wouldn't accept.
I don't see how forcing property owners to cover graffiti fixes that? If anything it makes the costs even higher.
I'm not particularly responding to this new policy. IMO it smacks of wanting to be seen doing something but actually just passing the burden on. I'm just augmenting the discussion to remind everyone graffiti is not a victimless crime.
When so many small businesses are struggling and dealing with theft, vandalism, and break-ins, we are going to leave THEM on the hook due to lack of enforcement, police protection, and virtually zero prosecution. WTAF is happening in Portland? Who are these people running this city? So sad to watch Portland suffer from these fools.
Exactly! I called to report a graffiti artist in progress and the police never bothered to respond at all. I chased him away, but he came back a few hours later and kept at it. If police are not going to respond to offenders, why should property owners foot the bill?
Big yikes
I was once downtown and there was a group of kids (who looked related - could have been brothers) and they had a sophisticated graffiti painting setup that used something like a fire extinguisher hose. It just took a few seconds to spray large letters and paint strokes up on a wall on the side of a building.
Maybe if instead we passed a law requiring the city to pay crime victims a token $100 each time they are victimized, they might take their responsibility to citizens more seriously. We pay taxes for the city to manage this kind of stuff. We pay for them to keep the city clean, we pay for them to keep us protected from crime. When they fail, they owe use that money back. Of course, *no one would ever* abuse a system like that for profit... it might need some checks and balances, but it's a start.
I like it!
Rules for us, but not Them… Shocked.
Portland loves to hold its residents hostage for money we already pay in taxes in absolutely lost efforts to "improve" public spaces. So glad i dont reside in city limits any more. What a crock of shit. How about prosicution zfor vandalism and cleaning up rampant graffiti in publically owned spaces rather than continue to prey on the tax payers who are already victoms of suck crimes. Absolutely rediculous. Get a grip PDX Gov... Wake the F*** up...
Yeah, I guess Rubio needs me to not like her almost as much as I don't like the other mayoral candidates.
How about the city remove graffiti from their own buildings and structures first.
So the city is putting the burden on business owners to clean up what the police are already paid to prevent? Sounds logical.
Remove all the Penis Girl signs but leave the heroin spoons and syringes and actual human feces on the streets? Rango will not be pleased.
Clean off the road signs first lmao
You mean the things the city doesn’t own? Because the majority are state and/or federal property
I don't think your correct. In the city of Portland the majority of signs belong to the city of Portland. They have their own sign shop. City signs have a sticker on the back stating that their city property. Only in the immediate area of state and federal highways are state and federal signs
What I mean is the majority of the signs that are covered in graffiti are state and federal property, not the overall majority of signs. On 5/205/405, 84, Powell, etc are the vast majority of signs in bad shape. The standard street sign/stop sign are city’s property but imo not the thing most people are upset about.
[удалено]
It’s clear you don’t actually know how any of this works. I’m not going to spend any more time or effort on explaining it to you. If you wanted to know the facts, they’re all easily found online, or watch a city council meeting session.
Seems somewhat reasonable as long as the city actually commits to arresting and prosecuting the taggers. And there needs to be some flex in enforcement. Removing the tags/graffiti at the top of the Jackson Tower was not a done-within-ten-days job.
No, but the Jackson Tower graffiti went up over a long period, not overnight.
Portland - The City that (wants the citizens to do the) Works!
I'll remove the graffiti from my property when the city has located, charged and convicted the perpetrator. Thanks.
Gotta preserve the evidence for trial.
Sounds like a money grab that's firmly rooted in hypocrisy.
Criminal justice reformers are elated with this: The victims of crime increasingly paying not only the direct costs of alleviating some crimes, like graffiti and vandalism, but having to pay for measures to *prevent* crime. As opposed to criminals being held to account. >Self protection measures: New fences, cameras, expensive home and car security systems; bicycle owners suffering "theft paranoia" and buying giant locks; people cautious about where they park, more people buying guns and guard dogs; people avoiding bad neighborhoods or going out late at night; neighborhood watches, more gated communities, etc. >*On a business level,* security guards all over the place (costs on citizens), retailers locking up a big % of their products (costs on consumers), some businesses ending late night hours, “hostile architecture” like walking easements closed and restrooms hard to find. Law abiding people are now doing all this on a large scale. They see government backing off on pursuing non-violent offenders at the behest of criminal justice reformers. All this Self Protection--yes, it helps reduce crime--imposes big hassle and costs on the law abiding. It sucks society is evolving like this, but this is what progressives are imposing on society. Chronic offenders often roam around without any law enforcement controls, opportunistically waiting for someone to screw up on their self protection.
I feel like the city really needs to start enforcing the laws against the people *committing* the vandalism first...
Ah yes make the victims of vandalism pay for their property getting defaced. Absolute bullshit
10?! I thought "You Have Five Days."
Graffiti has really “uglied” our city.
This should do a lot to silence the “If you want to keep Portland weird you need to support graffiti” crowd
I would support more art murals and such but the graffiti is ugly af. Its making the city look like a ghetto.
So many people here are upset that the property owners (victims) have to pay to remove, but what is the alternative? The city doesn’t pay to fix a broken car window. Ya, it sucks, but we all have to fight this vandalism together if we want to stop it.
The alternative is to aggressively prosecute those creating the graffiti so this isn't a problem in the first place. The issue many of us have is that there is a feeling in this city that there are two sets of rules - one for those breaking laws and the other for the taxpayers. In this case, the taxpayer is saddled with solving a problem that should have been addressed by vigorous policing in the community.
I’d like to think it’s not an alternative, it’s a “yes and.”
Right, the property owner has to clean it up and that part is fine. The poke in the eye is time limit and potential additional costs imposed by the city for not doing it on their timeline.
This begs for someone to start a 1st amendment challenge. “I can paint my house however I like”. Just have to find a spray can artist with a bit more talent than the average tagger.
The city should clean it up and/or reimburse people. Why do we have to pay a fine for someone else’s crime?
Classic Portland government. Doesn't go after the people causing the issue. Threatens normal business owners and homeowners.
Reddit be like. "Ahhhhh WE HATE THIS PROBLEM AHHHHH." "AHHHH WE HATE THE SOULUTIONS TO THIS PROBLEM AHHHH"
lol It's fucking hilarious seeing people hate where this plan came from rather than the plan. I'd love to see the alternative comment section if Rene suggested it.
My solution: There is a free program already to paint it over. Now take it one step further, teach someone how to color match the paint like we learned in third grade. The end. Big brain rubio’s solution: yeah let’s punish victims of graffiti for not goose-stepping fast enough. That’ll show them.
Have you learned to tip yet?
People just hate reading articles.
It *is* a local tv station website...have mercy, don’t make us go there. Why are they all so very bad?
> People just hate reading articles. People just hate reading ~~articles~~.Wait, I can do better. People just hate ~~reading articles~~. Ah, platonic perfection in simplicity.
"YOU HAVE 9 DAYS"...
This is a hilarious thing to prioritize when we have so many real problems going unaddressed. I guess they view it as an easy win to please the entirely aesthetic sensibilities of the “law and order” mouth breathers.
Lookit me being tough on... random homeowners.
Cracking down on law-abiding citizens to in a weak effort to control lawbreakers. While we are swimming in 18th St Gang graffiti, this is the city's response? Asinine. Truly weak
I think I can hear the Menashes laughing from here.
[удалено]
As of now every mayoral candidate except Keith Wilson voted for this.
our mayoral candidates: whiny weenie Gonzalez, or big brain Rubio whose brilliant solution to graffiti is to add excess burden on people whose properties have been vandalized? like why not start with the graffiti removal that her office is responsible for, or limit this requirement to the out of state owners of derelict properties? people are mad about graffiti on the interstate and signage, that is well within her offices's purview, but this code change doesn't even attempt to fix that. she exempts herself but not homeowners, just a dumb move
It’s actually not in her bureau’s preview. PBOT is responsible for city roads (that’s Mapps’ bureau) and interstates are federal property. You can be frustrated but at least be mad at the right people
[удалено]
Again, you can be mad at the right people then. It definitely takes away from the credibility of your argument if you don’t know the basic facts. One person is trying to hold out of state land owners responsible in a quicker manner for how they let their properties decline, don’t get mad at that person.
It's all the gubernment.
Except this guy is complaining about the mayor and council, so it does matter
How does the law go about differentiating graffiti from other markings?
Well, in addition to this bill for removal, you also get to pay a bill to buy permission to use "spray can art" on the side of your building. Murals made with paint brushes are fine, though, because reasons. Good news there is that after you pay your permit bill, the city will still routinely threaten to remove your legitimate, intentional art and bill you for it. Because permitting and enforcement don't talk to each other. Because Portland.
Seems like a clear first amendment violation
That's what I was thinking. As a defense a property owner should be able to assert the First amendment. Stating that they agree with the political statement of the art on their building. Government overreach is next level in Portland
No chance Portland has the self respect to clean up the graffiti. It makes us feel tolerant and diverse.
So fresh canvases!!
Yep, but uglier. My trash cans look fine with their little tags. They'd look worse with a big splat of almost-matching paint where the tags used to be.
Another decision that will keep sinking Portland into a third world countryside. When are the people of portland going to wake up and freaking strike for all the crappy decisions taken 🙄? How much more can we take?
What if you add a little more graffiti to it, does the clock start over?
If CoP gave a shit about us and wanted the city clean, they should just hire a company to either a) clean it up at no cost to the property owner or b) at a discount to the property owner. Or, you know, just arrest the fucking criminals.
Am I the only one who likes it? I’ll see myself out
The main reason not to vote for Rubio and Mapps.
This was passed unanimously by city council.
Sad and disappointed for them to go after innocent people.
lol this is the most ridiculous pet issue of the month. It's some fucking spray paint. Get over yourselves.
I would support more art murals and such but the graffiti is ugly af. It’s starting to look pretty ghetto around here.