EDITORIAL: It 'doesn't look that bad' - Opinion

PRINT THIS Popular

Dec. 04, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: It 'doesn't look that bad'

Graffiti victim gets hit twice

Las Vegas attorney Edward "Ted" Marshall owns an aging warehouse on a concrete plain in downtown Las Vegas. The lot is fenced off, in places with barbed wire. But that hasn't been enough to keep those who perpetrate graffiti from wriggling in and leaving their marks on the inviting walls.

Since 2004, Mr. Marshall says he has painted out the graffiti six times. Then someone painted something he kind of liked.

Most Popular Stories

EDITORIAL: Reverse discrimination

LETTERS: Reid's hometown rejects wind power? Oh my!

LETTERS: Berkley, Titus support witches' brew of taxation

EDITORIAL: Turn out the lights ...

GLENN COOK: Hypocrites! Hypocrites! Hypocrites!

FROM OUR READERS: In the dark about the new light bulbs

LETTERS: Casinos learn gamblers want the human touch

Springs Preserve a positive for Las Vegas

LETTERS: Nuclear power could be the answer for Nevada

EDITORIAL: Pricing probe

"It looked like a giant heart of some kind," said Mr. Marshall, a former Clark County district attorney and one-time candidate for governor. "It covered the wall. It was very artistic. I decided, 'Well, that graffiti doesn't look that bad. Why not leave it there?' "

But the city of Las Vegas has taken a different view: Graffiti is graffiti, and it has to go. And because Mr. Marshall didn't cover the graffiti promptly, city enforcement agents issued him a $930 fine.

An incensed Mr. Marshall said that makes him a victim twice over. "I will not pay that $900 bill," he told the council. "I will go to the Supreme Court before I pay a penny."

Mayor Pro Tem Gary Reese, who represents the area that includes Mr. Marshall's property, said the city has to hold the line on graffiti. "I don't want graffiti on any buildings in the city of Las Vegas," the councilman explains. "He said it was artistic or something, but for me, it's a crime. For him to stand there and say he's sick and tired and he's going to leave it how it is -- that's bull crap."

It's like "any other situation where you have property damage," city spokeswoman Mary Ann Price explains. "If you had a burned-out building ... it creates a hazard. You as the property owner would be responsible for it."

Really? A painted wall creates the same kind of "hazard" as a burned-out building or a garbage dump?

"Their definition of graffiti is any kind of painting that's unauthorized," points out Mr. Marshall, who is, after all, an attorney. If the property owner likes what's painted there, who's to say whether it's "authorized"? It's not illegal to paint a mural, is it? If it were, one wonders if the city itself might be in violation.

The whole issue is surprisingly simple, once viewed through the lens of property rights.

If eliminating graffiti in order to keep the town from looking like the set of one of those Mad Max post-apocalypse movies is a matter of high municipal priority, the city would be well within its rights to enact ordinances that increase the cost to such vandals.

If police manpower is really too scarce to stake out likely target sites and nab repeat perpetrators in the act, cash rewards could be offered for vigilantes who catch such thugs, allowing members of the Neighborhood Watch to dial a special hot line after making an apprehension. The reward could be reduced if the suspect's thumbs are missing when police arrive, discouraging things from "getting out of hand."

The city is also well within its rights to offer to spend municipal funds to paint over graffiti on private property if the owner agrees to permit access.

But the city is not within its rights to force such attentions on property owners who do not grant their permission, or to threaten to punish the victims of crimes.

Think where such a precedent could lead. Should residents whose cars are stolen be billed for the police expense of recovering their vehicles? For that matter, couldn't we bill senior citizens for the added costs in police and ambulance manpower when old people are beat over the head during night-time ATM robberies?

Punishing crime victims is ridiculous, pernicious, disgusting, and hardly "good public policy," whether the crime of which they have been the victim is rape, assault or property defacement.

Municipal authorities should present themselves as the helpful allies of beleaguered property owners, not accessories after the fact to those who impose costs on these law-abiding citizens against their will.

Mr. Marshall says it could be a while before he files suit. In the meantime, he says he might try another response. The city code defined graffiti as an "unauthorized inscription, insignia, symbol, word, figure, character or design" placed on a structure, he points out. "If I were to authorize people to paint on the wall, there's nothing they could do about it," he said. "Have a contest: Who can paint the best portrait of the City Council?"

Sounds good to us.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	13 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Fair and Balanced Fred wrote on December 04, 2008 10:00 PM: I live in Summerlin. We have hyper-vigilant homeowners' associations here to maintain property values. If my neighbor somehow decides his violation of the homeowners agreement is somehow a "Work of Art", and decides that his continued compliance with the homeowners agreement somehow infringes on his freedom of expression, well, tough Shinola. Move! So, we will leave "Common Sense" to decide for us what graffiti actually constitutes "art" and does not infringe on the rights of his taxpaying neighbors to maintain their property values. Radical individualists, like "Common Sense" (and some nuts who write half-baked editorials for the R-J) have obvious authority issues. Tell us, Common Sense, how did you experience your early authority figures like, say, your parents? Wanna keep your graffitti? Live next door to me? Tough! Screwya, ya' nut! Fausto wrote on December 04, 2008 12:11 PM: "That stupid statement will certainly look nice on the lid of some five year olds coffin you genius!" I am so much of a genius I never allowed my 5 year old to play outside unsupervised. Once again, parental responsibility! TimeRanger wrote on December 04, 2008 11:47 AM: Not much different than assessing fines against grocery stores who had their property (shopping carts) stolen. Tom, Burbank wrote on December 04, 2008 10:58 AM: A portrait of the City Council has already been painted. It's on velvet and includes several dogs sitting around a table playing poker. Jack wrote on December 04, 2008 09:41 AM: Fausto writes Maybe kids should be taught not to trespass on other's property? Would that be asking too much? Better yet, you could take a leadership position and do something about it rather than rely on the government. That stupid statement will certainly look nice on the lid of some five year olds coffin you genius! Common Sense wrote on December 04, 2008 08:57 AM: Wow, Fred, it's funny that you call extorting hundreds of dollars from the victim of vandalism an attempt to "control graffiti." Because to normal people, it sounds like local gov't abdicating its responsibility to control crime, and simply trying to cover their negligence by threatening anyone who defies their authority. But, hey, keep dishing out childish insults. They fool everyone into thinking that I'm wrong, and that you're real smart. John F wrote on December 04, 2008 08:43 AM: Editors, Speaking of property rights..... My sister the real estate agent tells me that once graffiti takes hold in a neighborhood the sales prices of homes decline at least 10 - 15%. So tell me, how would you feel if that graffiti were on the house next door to yours? If your house was worth $300,000 yesterday, that graffiti makes it worth only $255,000 today. Are you willing to stand up for your neighbor's right to leave that graffiti on his house when it's costing you forty-five grand? Fausto wrote on December 04, 2008 07:32 AM: "I was told they would take care of it. Not yet! I guess that they feel it is more important to try to beautify that craphole they call downtown than too insure our kids dont fall into an abandonded pool!" Maybe kids should be taught not to trespass on other's property? Would that be asking too much? Better yet, you could take a leadership position and do something about it rather than rely on the government. Fair and Balanced Fred wrote on December 04, 2008 07:29 AM: Wow, "Common Sense," I did not realize you are a political scientist / political philosopher. Thanks dude. In your oh-so-wise, sanctimonious way, please continue to define for us (through your "Common Sense" filters) anything else you think we don't adequately understand. Controversial attempts to control graffiti = "socialism." Now that's "Common Sense." Jack wrote on December 04, 2008 07:05 AM: I live in the city fo Las Vegas. When I recently called the city to report that three foreclosed properties in my neighborhood have misssing gates and large sections of fence, with FULL SWIMMING POOLS IN THE YARD! I was told they would take care of it. Not yet! I guess that they feel it is more important to try to beautify that craphole they call downtown than too insure our kids dont fall into an abandonded pool! Read All Comments