CC Minutes - 05/24/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

penalty-free graffiti wall in Corvallis. He suggested that staff talk to Corvallis City staff about its experience with the graffiti wall. Mr. Pap8 asked how the City would approach property owners located out of state or out of the community. He said that often property owners were unaware of such situations, which he believed should be the responsibility of the tenant. Mr. Lankston responded that notice to the property owner was done through certified mail. Mr. Pap8 asked what would happen if the property owner did not receive the notice. Mr. Lankston said that the property will also be posted, so the tenant would see the notice. Mr. Pap8 suggested that the tenant may not feel responsible for the graffiti. Mr. Lankston acknowledged that possibility. Mr. Pap8 said that situation needed to be addressed. Mr. Klein said that the certified letter should reach the property owner unless they failed to notify the County Tax Assessor of their correct address. Mr. Pap8 agreed with Mr. Meisner about the restitution penalties. He also agreed with Mr. Kelly about creating a new offense if the current code could be modified. He was concerned about placing responsibility for what could be considered a public problem on property owners. He said that the potential costs of mitigating etched glass, for example, could be hard for some property owners to afford. Mr. Rayor asked staff to define "person responsible." Mr. Klein defined the "person responsible" as the person violating the code, which would include the violator and owner of the property, with the idea that for most situations the owner has responsibility because he or she brought the violator onto the property. The concept was to ensure the problem was corrected by the violator or by the owner so the City was not left with that responsibility. Mr. Lankston clarified that the first part of the ordinance referred to the property owner, and the last section referred to the person who actually painted the graffiti. Mr. Rayor asked what penalty the property owner faced. Mr. Lankston said the property owner would be required to pay the City for the costs of abatement and any administrative costs incurred by the City in abating the graffiti. Mr. Rayor believed that the letter regarding the Corvallis graffiti wall was timely. He said that many people at the downtown summit agreed that the City needed to provide opportunities for all people downtown. A graffiti wall had been suggested by participants, and he thought it was a great idea the City should pursue in conjunction with the ordinance. Ms. Taylor supported the creation of a graffiti wall in Eugene. She preferred prevention over punishment, and suggested that the City enlist the help of those who might enjoy such a wall to help paint out unwelcome graffiti. She was disturbed that the City would be penalizing a property owner who had already been victimized by someone tagging their property, particularly when there was the potential the tagging could happen over and over. Ms. Taylor asked how often those leaving graffiti were caught. Mr. Lankston did not know, adding he could check with the Police Department on statistics. Ms. Taylor believed that the ordinance merely penalized the property owner, who was the one person the City could catch. She believed that those caught tagging property should do community service that included painting over graffiti. She did not support jail time for such individuals because the jails were too crowded. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m.