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.)