Lincoln may not be able to afford graffiti clean up
Take a walk around downtown Lincoln and you’re likely to spot only a few pieces of uninvited art.
That, seven months since the city put into effect a new graffiti ordinance intended to curb the crime, is the good news.
Here’s the bad: The person in charge of mandating compliance says the city may not be able to afford the required cleanups, the number of graffiti cases hasn’t fallen and not a single bid for the necessary cleanup work has been offered.
While it may be too soon to evaluate the ultimate success of the law, the shortcomings could become long-term issues, city ombudsman Lin Quenzer said .
“It’s just one of those devils to get implemented,” she said.
The city will pay the up-front cost of graffiti coverup when a property owner fails to comply within the 15-day requirement. If owners don’t immediately pay, the city can put a lien on the property to recoup the bill. The owner isn’t required to clear the debt until he or she sells the property.
“There are some property owners who have no intention of selling within their lifetime,” Quenzer said. “It could be 20 to 30 years down the road before we get that money back.”
The 2006-07 fiscal budget provided $17,269 for cleanup efforts. Of that, $7,269 came from the discretionary funds of former City Councilwomen Patte Newman and Annette McRoy; the amount proposed in the 2007-08 budget is $10,000.
Among 200 notices sent since January, compliance has been around 90 percent, Quenzer said.
Work on properties left uncleaned will start as soon as a contractor is hired. City officials can only guess how quickly the labor costs will be repaid.
While she would not give an estimate of how much she thinks the work will cost, Quenzer said it is “more than we have budgeted.” She said she has “significant concerns” the city will be able to enforce the law without more money — a tough wish to grant given the city’s budget situation.
Newman, who was an advocate of the ordinance, said she realized more money would likely be needed. She said she requested $15,000 to $20,000, but was turned down.
Newman defended the law and said she expects it to prove successful over time.
“We needed to get out in front of it before we became a blighted community,” she said. “I think we’ve done that.”
Education efforts are still being coordinated, which could help curb graffiti, Newman said.
“Besides, we can’t say what the case would be if we hadn’t enacted the law,” she said.
Still, the numbers don’t appear to be dropping.
While the law made the crime a misdemeanor with a minimum $200 fine, graffiti remains an increasingly popular — and often gang-related — activity.
As of last week, police had recorded 472 graffiti cases this year, on track to match the 1,014 logged in 2006. There were 468 cases in 2005.
“Even taking into account the reporting phenomenon caused by all the publicity, most officers would agree there is more graffiti,” Police Chief Tom Casady said.
People who spray paint illegally are “not thinking, ‘Oh, this is a $200 fine,’” Casady said. “A far more important factor is the likelihood of apprehension.”
Reach Drew Kerr at 473-7223 or dkerr@journalstar.com.
That, seven months since the city put into effect a new graffiti ordinance intended to curb the crime, is the good news.
Here’s the bad: The person in charge of mandating compliance says the city may not be able to afford the required cleanups, the number of graffiti cases hasn’t fallen and not a single bid for the necessary cleanup work has been offered.
While it may be too soon to evaluate the ultimate success of the law, the shortcomings could become long-term issues, city ombudsman Lin Quenzer said .
“It’s just one of those devils to get implemented,” she said.
The city will pay the up-front cost of graffiti coverup when a property owner fails to comply within the 15-day requirement. If owners don’t immediately pay, the city can put a lien on the property to recoup the bill. The owner isn’t required to clear the debt until he or she sells the property.
“There are some property owners who have no intention of selling within their lifetime,” Quenzer said. “It could be 20 to 30 years down the road before we get that money back.”
The 2006-07 fiscal budget provided $17,269 for cleanup efforts. Of that, $7,269 came from the discretionary funds of former City Councilwomen Patte Newman and Annette McRoy; the amount proposed in the 2007-08 budget is $10,000.
Among 200 notices sent since January, compliance has been around 90 percent, Quenzer said.
Work on properties left uncleaned will start as soon as a contractor is hired. City officials can only guess how quickly the labor costs will be repaid.
While she would not give an estimate of how much she thinks the work will cost, Quenzer said it is “more than we have budgeted.” She said she has “significant concerns” the city will be able to enforce the law without more money — a tough wish to grant given the city’s budget situation.
Newman, who was an advocate of the ordinance, said she realized more money would likely be needed. She said she requested $15,000 to $20,000, but was turned down.
Newman defended the law and said she expects it to prove successful over time.
“We needed to get out in front of it before we became a blighted community,” she said. “I think we’ve done that.”
Education efforts are still being coordinated, which could help curb graffiti, Newman said.
“Besides, we can’t say what the case would be if we hadn’t enacted the law,” she said.
Still, the numbers don’t appear to be dropping.
While the law made the crime a misdemeanor with a minimum $200 fine, graffiti remains an increasingly popular — and often gang-related — activity.
As of last week, police had recorded 472 graffiti cases this year, on track to match the 1,014 logged in 2006. There were 468 cases in 2005.
“Even taking into account the reporting phenomenon caused by all the publicity, most officers would agree there is more graffiti,” Police Chief Tom Casady said.
People who spray paint illegally are “not thinking, ‘Oh, this is a $200 fine,’” Casady said. “A far more important factor is the likelihood of apprehension.”
Reach Drew Kerr at 473-7223 or dkerr@journalstar.com.
Copyright © 2002-2008 Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.