Marsia Mason, please note: if I find your car in a parking lot . . . I might leave a nasty note under your windshield wiper.

“As we were walking into the high school, we passed several expensive sedans with signs that read ‘Respect and Fairness.’ I had left my baseball bat at home, which is a good thing because instead of feeling sympathy for the teachers, I actually wanted to club their Beemers; leave them my own special sign.”  — Marsia Mason, “Bored of Education,” patch.com

There’s so much wrong with this, I don’t know where to start.

First, do we even know if the “expensive sedans” in the school parking lot on “back to school night” even belonged to teachers, and not parents?

If they belonged to teachers, were they paid for with the teachers’ salaries (or more likely, paid by another family member’s salary)? Or might some teachers choose “expensive sedans” as more suitable for a second job as a real-estate agent?

My disbelief of this parent’s story arises from an experience I had 20 years ago, when I was a new attorney:

I was asked to speak to a class at Monte Vista High School in Danville, which serves a very affluent community, with an average household income higher than 99% of school districts in California.

I’d never been to the school before, and when I drove into the parking lot, I was astonished to see lots of expensive sedans (BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, etc.). I was driving my brand-new Toyota Corolla, which was clearly the cheapest car in the lot.

I drove around the parking lot several times, but couldn’t find a parking space, so I parked at the curb in front of the office and ran in to ask where I should park.

“Oh, you can’t park in the student parking lot,” said the school secretary. “You need to park in the teacher’s lot. It’s up that dirt path.”

I drove up the dirt road, and soon realized that my new Toyota Corolla was the finest car (by far) in the unpaved teacher’s parking lot.  I saw lots of old, beat-up cars, which the teachers drove many miles from the distant communities where they could afford to live on a teacher’s salary.

As I’ve mentioned in other blog posts here, I’ve had several careers in my lifetime: journalist, attorney, internet marketing consultant, and (very briefly) teacher.  As a teacher, I collected the lowest pay of any career, and worked the hardest, under the worst conditions.  I refused to tolerate the conditions, and quit.

If teachers’ salaries were doubled, they’d still be underpaid for the work we demand from them.

At noon today (Saturday, October 9), I pulled down six campaign signs for Nadia Lockyer:

• Three were posted on state-owned property*;
• Two were posted on city-owned property*; and
• One was posted on county property* (a water district right-of-way across city property).

All six signs were attached to chain-link fences along a stretch (about 100 yards) on the west side of Mission Blvd., just south from Valle Vista Ave.*  As a courtesy, I called and emailed Ms. Lockyer’s campaign, advising where they could pick up the neatly-stacked signs.

Sure, I understand that it’s expensive and cumbersome to run a political campaign, and arranging for permissions from private-property owners to display signs is a huge task.  But no candidate should simply ignore the law and post signs everywhere. Nor should any candidate delegate the decision-making process to a private sign company, or accept legal advice from a sign company.

California law exempts campaign signs from the “Outdoor Advertising” laws and regulations, provided that the signs are posted on private property, are less than 32 square feet in size, are posted no earlier than 90 days before the election, and are removed within 10 days after the election. To comply with the law, candidates must file a “Statement of Responsibility” with the Department of Transportation, acknowledging that they are responsible for any costs for removing signs that are not removed within 10 days after the election.

Unfortunately, since the Department of Transportation is only responsible for public roadways, its form letter and the “Statement of Responsibility” refer only to the prohibition of campaign signs on”the right-of-way of any highway,” and don’t clearly explain that campaign signs may not be legally posted on any public property (whether owned by a city, county, district, or state).

Of course, unethical political candidates recognize that public works departments are strapped for cash and can’t afford to send staff to remove campaign signs (and even when they do remove illegal signage, it’s not cost-effective to keep records and invoice candidates for removal costs, since most candidates will ignore the invoices).

Therefore, many unethical candidates simply break the law, paying private companies to post signs everywhere there is traffic.

Does it make sense to vote for unethical candidates who abuse public resources by posting their signs on public property? Certainly not!

Does it make sense to vote for a candidate for County Supervisor who illegally posts campaign signs on county-owned property? Absolutely not!

*/ To be specific, the illegal campaign signs I removed were posted on these parcels: 078C043800700 (city); 078C043801101 (county water district on city property); and 078C043800800, 078C043800900, and 078C043801000 (state property).

I read an interesting article in the East Bay Express yesterday, noting that the City of Berkeley is considering adding new fees for residents to cover the increased losses from recycling.

Yes, folks, that’s right: most cities lose money from their recycling efforts, because the cost for trucks, staff, and facilities exceeds the income from selling recyclables.  One factor is poachers’ diversion of “high-value” recyclables (mostly cans and bottles), leaving cities only the heavier and less-profitable recyclables.

In our household, we’ve struggled with recycling for several years. Whenever we try to save our cans and bottles to redeem ourselves, we end up with ant problems.  But if we won’t profit from the recycling, it’s very inconvenient to maintain two or three separate refuse containers in our kitchen (currently, we have one for cans and bottles, another for paper and cardboard, plus a regular “trash” container).  This means we use more plastic bags, and spend more time replacing the bags.

And then someone raids our recycling bins to profit from our extra work and expense!

For years, I didn’t think twice about the folks who poached our recycling bins.  But then I noticed that when I picked up our empty trash cans, there was always “debris” in the street, which I long assumed was “cast-off” from the trash pickup (“lazy workers”), until one afternoon I watched someone “raiding” our cans.

An elderly woman pulling a cart stopped at our recycling bins, and began pulling items out and tossing them onto the street. She took the cans and bottles, and put most of the other recyclables back into the recycling bins. But then she raided the regular trash cans, ripping open trash bags to extract cans and bottles, and dumping loose trash onto the street. She made no effort to pick up the loose trash.

The following week, when the same lady came by to raid our trash cans, I chased her away.  A week later, she returned again, and I chased her off again. I started to wait until later in the afternoon to take out the bins, but then other people raided them, sometimes more neatly but sometimes leaving a worse mess.

My efforts to prevent “poaching” of our bins doesn’t just help me avoid cleanup work; it also keeps the highest-value recyclables for the city to collect and redeem, further offsetting the cost of trash collection.

I’d be less upset if the same people who poached our recyclables also picked up loose cans and bottles that people dump in streets and near sidewalks, but they don’t — picking up a single can or bottle isn’t worth their effort!

While reading the East Bay Express article yesterday, I considered what “extra steps” we might take, as a community, to prevent poachers from diverting our community’s resources.  Unfortunately, any solutions I can conceive of would bring extra costs (lockable bins and trucks that could open them; bringing out the bins only when the city truck turns onto our street). And of course, there are many “more important” problems facing our communities that deserve attention and resources.

Link: “Hands Off My Cans: Recycling and Anxiety in Berkeley” (East Bay Express, June 9-15, 2010), http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/recycling-and-anxiety-in-berkeley/Content?oid=1813895

Over the past few months, I’ve been trying to identify strategies to deter graffiti vandals.  There are many locations which, once cleaned of graffiti, are consistently re-tagged within a day or two, making the graffiti-cleanup process seem like a never-ending, “no-win” effort.

Of course, graffiti isn’t the only issue.  In my neighborhood, there are several “illegal dumping” locations, in front of vacant state-owned property. Although city staff promptly removes junk & debris on public property when reported, these locations rarely remain clean for more than a day.

The cost to pay city staff to clean up graffiti or pick up trash (many times in a year in each location) is quite high.  And if graffiti isn’t cleaned up, the blight creates a perception of lawlessness, which many studies have shown leads to increased crime, which brings additional expense in addition to the danger to public safety.

One obvious idea is to install surveillance cameras in these locations, to identify and pursue the lawbreakers.  (For the moment, I’d like to defer discussion of the legal, moral, and ethical issues surrounding the use of surveillance cameras. I’ve shared my mixed feelings about the issue, in part, back in October 2001.)

Unfortunately, the cost for a local government (or property owner, neighborhood group, or concerned neighbor) to install and maintain a security camera in any location is quite high, and city officials and police are reluctant to allocate significant resources to these issues (graffiti and debris) because overworked county prosecutors probably won’t take the offenders to court anyway.

My question: What are the options for “low-cost surveillance camera” setups that might be used by a city, a property owner, or by a neighborhood group, to monitor a location? In particular, are there any affordable options for “portable” surveillance equipment that can be moved relatively easily from one location to another?

Here are the “camera” issues I perceive:

• The camera‘s quality and functionality: image resolution; low-light capabilities; color; focus; zoom capability;
• “Movement options” for the surveillance setup (e.g. the ability to pan right or left, up or down, and to zoom in or out);
• Storage options (to store recorded video for later retrieval);
• Data transfer options (how will recorded video be “downloaded” for viewing: by wireless connection, or using a cable or removable storage);
• Power options (plug-in, battery, and/or solar);
• Installation and maintenance issues.

Each of these issues raises some very specific cost considerations, and of course each issue impacts others.  (For example, providing remote wireless access to the unit might require more power.)

Retrieval and “use” of the recorded videos are separate issues to address. I assume that video would only be viewed “after the fact” (for example, when a graffiti tag or dumped trash is observed, the recordings would be used to track back to the time when the crime occurred.)

Another issue is visibility of the surveillance unit. A conspicuous warning or notice might deter criminals (from that location), but might also lead vandals to damage or steal the equipment.

I’d appreciate feedback, either by posting comments or via email (to Mark Welch at Mark Welch dot com).

At a “dollar store,” I purchased steel-wool soap pads, scrubbers, “Mean Green” cleaner, a brush, wet-wipes, gloves, and some “travel bottles” to avoid carrying several large containers of graffiti cleaner.  After finding that the dollar-store brush was not very stiff, I found a better (tougher) brush at Wal-Mart ($2.24).  I also found thicker disposable gloves at Lowe’s ($2.48 for 6 pairs).   Finally, I bought some gray, white, and black duct tape ($1 each for 10 yards).

I bought these four graffiti-cleaner products:

1. Motsenbocker’s LiftOff type 3 for markers [$7 for 22 oz. at Home Depot],
2. Motsenbocker’s LiftOff type 4 for spray paint [$8 for 22 oz. at Home Depot],
3. Motsenbocker’s LiftOff type 5 for latex-based paint [$5.77 for 16 oz. at Wal-Mart], and
4. Goof Off Graffiti Remover [$5.48 for 16 oz at Lowe's]

Of these four products, Goof Off Graffiti Remover proved the most versatile, removing the widest range of types of graffiti; LifeOff 4 was the next most useful.  However, LiftOff 3 and LiftOff 5 were definitely able to remove some graffiti that the other two products could not. My biggest disappointment with the LiftOff products was that the spray mechanism didn’t reliably work on 2 of the 3 bottles I purchased.

I’ve now poured small amounts of LiftOff 3, LiftOff 5, and Mean Green cleaner into small travel-size bottles that I carry with me, so I can fit them into a fanny pack, without carrying the larger containers. I also bought a smaller container of LiftOff 4 ($4.47 for 4.5 oz. at Home Depot), and replaced the cap with a spray cap. Unfortunately, the Goof Off Graffiti remover is sold only in a 16-ounce aerosol can, which I don’t think can be decanted into a smaller spray bottle.

I saw several other brands of graffiti cleaner at Lowe’s and Home Depot. I also noticed much more expensive products in stores and online (for example, at the Kelly-Moore paint store near my home, the only graffiti cleaner offered was $26 for a 22-ounce container; that’s $1.18 per ounce, compared to the 30- to 40-cent-per-ounce range for the graffiti cleaners I used). I simply don’t have the budget to compare the effectiveness of more expensive graffiti cleaners.

Considering the relatively high cost of graffiti removers, I was pleasantly surprised that a dollar-store bottle of “Mean Green” cleaner (at just 5 cents per ounce) sometimes proved to be an effective general-purpose graffiti remover.  Even when it isn’t effective, it makes sense to clean dust and grime from the surface before using more expensive graffiti cleaners.

Regular “wet wipe” towelettes were rarely effective on graffiti, but “two-sided” moistened towelettes (Lysol Dual-Action wipes, with coarse and smooth sides) were sometimes effective, when used with cleaner or one of the graffiti removers. But most graffiti required using a steel-wool pad, steel scrubber, or a stiff brush, along with much more muscle.

For cement, brick, and unpainted wood surfaces (including trees), and for some textured plastic and painted surfaces, the stiff brush proved very effective (sometimes just using the Mean Green cleaner).

After seeing thousands of graffiti tags over the past few weeks, I had little caution when I started actually cleaning graffiti myself.  Frequently, graffiti cannot be cleaned without also damaging the paint beneath it, and I found myself mostly  unconcerned about this (since repainting would be necessary whether I removed the graffiti or not).

Sometimes, especially on cement and unfinished wood surfaces, my efforts will merely “smudge” the graffiti into an ugly blur (usually illegible).  On some painted surfaces, my efforts smudge the graffiti and the paint beneath it into a blur.  My worst experiences come when I scrub out a persistent graffiti tag on a metal pole, only to discover that I’ve removed both the graffiti tag and the paint beneath it — and then I realize that I’ve revealed older graffiti that can’t be removed!

And that, of course, is why I bought the duct tape: to cover graffiti that I couldn’t remove (from gray, white, and black metal surfaces).

I also bought a small razor-scraper ($1.48) and a heavier-duty “paint tool” for $4, at Home Depot. The small razor-scraper fits easily in my pocket (barely larger or heavier than a book of matches). These prove very helpful for removing graffiti labels — these are used by “lazy taggers” (presumably writing their tags onto the labels at school, and then inconspicuously slapping the labels onto poles as they walk by).  Within a few weeks, the writing fades away (as rain and sun deterioriate the top layer of the label), leaving just a blank white label. Alas, some “good samaritans” also use blank labels to cover up graffiti; when I remove those labels, I must also clean the graffiti beneath.

After three days of experimenting with “self-help” graffiti-removal, I’ve settled into a pattern: I pause to clean up the smallest graffiti tags (such as initials on the reflective stripes of a utility pole or tagged at the bottom edge of a sign) and the “easiest to remove” (metal surfaces, including sign posts and utility boxes), but when I encounter large graffiti tags or difficult surfaces, I still take a picture and submit it with a report to the city. (Sometimes I use graffiti cleaner to erase or smudge just one or a few characters from a large graffiti tag.)

Updated March 20, 2010: Alas, my submission of hundreds of Hayward graffiti reports has far exceeded the city staff time allocated for graffiti cleanup. The original goal of two-day response has stretched to weeks and now to six months. (After six weeks without graffiti, several locations near my home were tagged again; that request now has a projected completion date in June.*  Many of my recent graffiti reports in the “Access Hayward” system are now showing completion dates in September.)

The city’s stated goal of graffiti abatement within two days was based on the assumption that only a few residents would bother to report graffiti, and only in very limited locations. (I’m sure it was also based on a larger city budget, and not the current deficits.)

* Update March 25: Yesterday, the city thoroughly cleaned the graffiti in my neighborhood (for which the Access Hayward system had shown an “expected completion date” in June).  Some new requests are now showing “expected completion dates” in October. City staff also appear to be intelligently prioritizing most requests (for example, profane graffiti near schools has consistently been removed within 24 hours after I report it).

__________________________________________

Here’s the original article:

Fast Response to Graffiti in Hayward

February 17, 2010: For the past six months, I’ve begun walking more — gradually increasing to 3 to 5 miles per day, three or four days each week. During my walks, I’ve noticed a lot of graffiti, and I grew increasingly angry with the City of Hayward for not doing something about it.  But then I remembered the crisis in funding public services (at both the state and city levels), and I realized how few city staffers are available to deal with this huge problem — and then it occurred to me that city staff can’t respond to graffiti unless someone reports it.

And then, of course, I realized that as a citizen, I must also do my part. So in December, I snapped a few pictures of graffiti in my neighborhood, and submitted them to the city.  I was amazed when city workers responded within 24 hours and painted over graffiti. When vandals re-tagged the same places, I reported it again, and city workers again painted over the graffiti — and in those locations, at least, the “taggers” have given up.

The City of Hayward makes this process pretty easy: they have a section of their web site called “Access Hayward” where we can submit “requests for city services,” including reporting graffiti, debris, abandoned cars, and much more. (Requests can be anonymous, or you can include your name or other contact information, to receive a response.)  Your “request” can include an attachment (I’ve submitted images as well as PDF documents that include multiple images). The city contracts for this service with GovOutreach, a company that also serves a couple dozen other California cities.

This month, the GovOutreach service (used by Hayward) added an iPhone app, so now during my walk each day, I can immediately open a new “request,” snap a picture, enter the location (with a comment, if the picture isn’t self-explanatory), and then hit “submit.”  The iPhone app uses the phone’s location-sensing (I have an “original” iPhone without GPS, so I usually have to “correct” or manually enter the address).  I just noticed today that if I don’t know the street name, I can use the location-lookup and then view a map of the area, so I can see the street name — which I can then use to report the missing street sign!

I’d like to thank the city workers for their prompt, efficient response to graffiti.  But their efforts (and mine) aren’t enough unless other Hayward residents promptly report graffiti.  As I noted above, the “taggers” quickly realize if their graffiti is removed quickly, and the result is less graffiti.

Most graffiti is in public places (signs, sign posts, walls, and sidewalks), and the city responds quickly to most of those requests. Graffiti on private property is trickier. In my neighborhood, property owners and apartment maintenance crews usually paint over graffiti on their property quickly, but unfortunately there are some property owners who don’t respond. My understanding is that after receiving a report of graffiti on private property, the city sends a notice to the property owner, and if the owner doesn’t remove it quickly, the city sends staff to remove it and bills the owner.

FYI, the city also offers free paint to residents who want to immediately paint over graffiti on public property near their homes.

Both times, gang tags were prominent, and my worry is that the persistent graffiti sends a message to the children who must cross this bridge that the gangs and vandals are in charge, not the city. These children have little choice but to comply with any demands made by bullies and gang members.

Yesterday morning, I crossed the bridge again, just a few hours after city workers had completely cleaned the entire bridge again. Already, there were a few new graffiti tags.

Today, I crossed the bridge again and took the photographs below (click on any thumbnail to view a larger, clearer version; all these pictures are of graffiti posted in 24 hours, between noon Friday and noon Saturday).  I didn’t recognize any of this new graffiti as gang tags, but I assume those tags will re-appear by Monday.

The obvious question: what can our community do to deter or prevent vandals from “tagging” the bridge? One idea would be to invite the community (perhaps including the children at the two nearby elementary schools and the middle school) to paint murals along the entire length of both of the inside walls of the bridge and the sidewalk surface (which is also tagged aggressively), and on the fences along the paths on both sides of the bridge.  (Normally, most graffiti vandals seem to respect such art; you can see some examples in my earlier post this morning, “Deterring Graffiti: Murals and More”).  However, the immense size and surface area (and the cost of materials and the time required to properly coordinate such a large art project) makes this highly implausible. (The city is already dealing with a huge deficit.)

Another complication: state construction crews are (slowly) building a replacement pedestrian bridge as part of the 880/92 interchange project.  When the new pedestrian bridge is complete, the old bridge will be demolished — and the graffiti problem will move to the new bridge.

As in many cities, Hayward encourages community members to create art on surfaces that might otherwise attract graffiti.  As you can see in the last picture below, metal utility boxes (electric, phone, and cable) are a common target for graffiti vandals, and they’re also an ideal canvas for community art.  Most graffiti vandals respect this art and won’t “tag” over community art (but a few will).

Another strategy that I’ve noticed as effective is the use of vegetation (especially ivy) to cover or obscure walls that would otherwise attract graffiti.  This week, I noticed a simpler solution: tinsel hung in a spiral around a stop-sign post had effectively deterred vandals who had tagged every other signpost in the area!

(Click on any picture to see a larger, clearer version.)