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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lee agreed with Ms. Taylor. He questioned the rationale for the ordinance. He did not understand penalizing a property owner, who had no control over tagging. Mr. Lankston said that the rationale behind the ordinance was that the public should not pay the cost of graffiti abatement on private property. Property owners have been using the program to abate graffiti on their property because they knew there was no charge. Mr. Lee suggested that the City should control the cost of the program rather than establish a one-size-fits all policy. Mr. Lankston said that was one reason staff exempted residential property from the ordinance. Commercial properties were included under the assumption that those property owners with the resources to abate their own graffiti should be covered by the ordinance. The City would continue to abate graffiti on residential property without cost to the property owner. Mr. Lee asked if cities with similar programs had experienced a decrease in graffiti activity. Mr. Lankston said that he did not have any information from Portland, which had recently instituted a similar program. He indicated he would research other programs for information about results. Mr. Lee said that the council and staff did not disagree on the desirable outcome, which was to decrease graffiti, but if he was a small business owner he might have a different impression of the ordinance. Mr. Johnson pointed out that victims often have to pay. For example, when a person's car was vandalized, that person, not the City, paid for the cost of repairs. Mr. Meisner suggested that the repeated use of the term "a person responsible" in both the abatement and penalty sections of the ordinance could confuse those who were not attorneys and should be revised. He shared Mr. Kelly's concern regarding the possibility the ordinance could lengthen the period of time between notice and graffiti abatement, and asked staff to look into that likelihood. Regarding the cost of abatement, Mr. Meisner said that everything the City did for the public's benefit imposed costs on someone; he cited the council's contemplation of imposing design standards on development as an example. He said that the ordinance did not impose a cost on the property owner unless the owner failed to abate the graffiti. He liked the idea of a graffiti wall, but did not think it would solve the problem as the tagging that was occurring had nothing to do with art or making a statement on a sanctioned wall. Mr. Meisner supported forwarding something similar to the ordinance under consideration to a public hearing. Mr. Klein said that the council could amend the draft ordinance by shortening the time period for property owner to abate graffiti. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Lankston confirmed that the City typically abated graffiti within four days of being noticed by the property owner. Mr. Kelly suggested that any time period for property owner response less than ten days would be unworkable given the need for notice to out-of-town owners. Regarding direction to staff, Mr. Kelly said he would like attorney and staff to consider the council's comments and return with another draft ordinance. He believed the council had enough questions to justify postponing the scheduled public hearing. Regarding the exemption of single-family residential development from the ordinance, Mr. Kelly said it did not necessarily follow that a small business owner operating on a slim profit margin was in any different situation, and he questioned how well the ordinance addressed the issue of ability to pay. Mr. Pap8 agreed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m.