End the War on Freedom

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 23, 2001
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
Punishing graffiti victims

Here in Las Vegas, the Clark County Commission will schedule a public hearing next month before adopting a new ordinance designed to facilitate the removal of graffiti from both residential and commercial property.

The proposed ordinance justifies the new measures based on the premise that removing graffiti is necessary to "protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the county and to prevent blight upon the community."

Graffiti as a health hazard sounds a little far-fetched. (Does exposure promote hives?) But concern over blight may be justifiable. The partial comeback of New York City from the brink of "Escape from New York" brand physical devastation has been attributed to the "broken window" theory of crime prevention, which holds that even such minor property crimes as broken windows do matter.

When such property crimes go unnoticed, unpunished, and unrepaired, antisocial characters can draw the conclusion that "anything goes" in a given neighborhood, emboldening them to act out in progressively more serious and dangerous ways, the theory goes.

Fine. Painting gang slogans and tags on someone else's property is a property crime, and the defense of private property is a vital function of law. If the county seeks to do more about this, that's well within their mandate, and more power to them.

What we need to be sure of, however, is that the solution doesn't do more than the original crime to erode the sanctity of private property.

When it comes to residential property, the new ordinance seems to erect some reasonable safeguards, barring county workers from trespassing on private property to remove or cover graffiti "visible from a public right of way" unless the owner consents, or unless (consent not being forthcoming) reasonable efforts are made to contact and notify the property owner of the intention to send in a painting crew. It's specified that the costs of any such removal shall be born by the county government.

For some reason, however, "non-residential" property owners would receive far less protection under this plan. Unlike the protections granted homeowners, owners of commercial property are merely to be given a period of time to paint out the offending scribblings, themselves. Otherwise, county paint crews would be authorized to tresass on private property without consent, and to bill the property owner for their "services."

What's more, the bill for these "services" would then be treated as "a lien upon the property," to be collected via "all laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of county taxes."

It's hard not to wonder if someone hasn't lost sight of a basic and highly important fact, here. Property owners who have had their property vandalized by graffiti "artists" are crime victims.

By and large, they already pay bundles of taxes to support the county bureaucracy. When they are singled out for victimization by the anti-social elements of society -- despite the vast sums we pour into the public schools on the promise that they will somehow educate, "socialize," and instill healthy values and attitudes in the young -- what they expect from government is a serious and stepped-up effort to catch and punish the culprits ... the real criminals who actually do the spray painting.

Where in this ordinance are police ordered to dedicate more time staking out private property in hopes of catching such criminals red-handed? Where are the new initiatives to "throw the book" at such felons when they're caught, putting the young thugs to work on the county farm, sending their victims a dollar a day for the culprits' useful work in manual manure redistribution until said victims are fully reimbursed for the costs of clean-up?

Nowhere. Instead we find threats to place liens against property owners until they pay back the county workers who the commission hereby threatens to send trespassing on their property.

What next? Shall we place liens against the homes and cars of rape victims until they pay back county "liens and delinquencies" for the medical care and examinations they receive after being raped? While meantime lifting not one finger to actually catch and lock up the rapists?

Commissioner Dario Herrera told reporters this week that -- should county workers go onto private non-residential property to remove graffiti under this ordinance -- property owners will be billed only for the cost of paint, not for labor.

But that's not what the ordinance says. It actually says "The county shall recover the amount expended by it for labor and materials."

These are not minor concerns. Some folks in this country still take their property rights very seriously, indeed.

In Columbia, N.H. in 1981, 80 feet of riverbank on the property of 67-year-old carpenter Carl Drega collapsed during a rainstorm. Drega decided to dump and pack enough dirt to repair the erosion damage, restoring his lot along the Connecticut River to its original size. Outraged that he had proceeded without a "permit," state environmental officials threatened to come onto his property and "restore" the shoreline to its eroded, washed-out condition, billing Drega any amount they should arrive at for their "services."

On Aug. 19, 1997, after fighting the state in court for years, Carl Drega died in a shoot-out with police after killing two cops, stealing their police car, and tracking down and killing a judge and a newspaper editor.

Throughout the 1990s, Garry Watson, 49, of little Bunker, Mo., (population 390) had been squabbling with town officials over a sewage line easement which ran across his property to the adjoining, town-operated sewage lagoon.

"He told them 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you,' " recalls Bunker resident Gregg Tivnan.

Defying Watson, town officials on Sept. 7, 2000 sent three sewer workers onto Watson's property, with a policeman to guard them. Watson came home from work on the night shift, fetched his rifle, and shot all four -- killing two. Thereupon he kissed his wife goodbye, rode off into the woods, and took his own life.

No one is endorsing what Drega or Watson did. But neither can officials any longer shrug their shoulders and pretend not to know such things can happen, when they blithely authorize their agents to go messing around on someone's private property, and then "send the victim the bill."

Property rights are serious business. Graffiti "artists" violate those rights. The county should do more to catch and punish them -- not to further penalize their victims.

---

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Subscribe to his monthly newsletter by sending $72 to Privacy Alert, 561 Keystone Ave., Suite 684, Reno, NV 89503 -- or dialing 775-348-8591. His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available at 1-800-244-2224.