Graffiti and its Costs
By Lizzy Strange
Whether you roll your eyes whenever you see graffiti or you stop and enjoy the tagged designs as art, graffiti plays a huge role in most every American city’s economics. There has been great controversy over whether or not graffiti is art, and many businesses have allowed and even encouraged their buildings to be covered in street graffiti. Some cities are even pushing towards hiring more artists to create murals on various blank walls or businesses, theatres, etc. Yet despite the support for more art in the city from some businesses, the cost of removing tagged images that are seen in the eyes of the law as vandalism still plays a crucial role in the economics and budget of American cities.
In a news report from KRQE included below, the city of Albuquerque faced such a large graffiti problem that they had more than 70 graffiti clean-up jobs a day for that year. The mayor of the city, Mayor Barry, also commented on the 68,000 calls for graffiti removal that were made that year as well. Since it’s the city’s job to clean up the spray-painted images, the mayor called for an increase in 3 more people on the graffiti removal crew, increasing the budget and concluding a group of 18 people, 15 originally, to clean up the streets (“Major, City”).
Not only will this increase the demand and supply for labor and take money out of the pockets of the taxpayers and the city government, but the cost of the time and resources used to clean up this graffiti is not something that is easily made back either. For some people, the issue of graffiti brings people out of the crowd to speak up about the topic. David Brant of San Clemente, California, sent a letter to the editor of the San Clemente Times after hearing about an art endeavor by Joshua Host of the House of Trestles to bring art to the city. Brant commented on the idea to bring street artists to this project with a more cynical point of view, saying, “I hope that Mr. Host and Mr. Heinz realize that Bandit and other street ‘artists’ create graffiti throughout San Clemente on public and private property that the city of San Clemente spends thousands of dollars yearly to remove” (Brant, David). Even though Host never publicly announced his endorsement of all graffiti, Brant still has a point; despite all the efforts some people and artists may take to bring art to any city, there still lingers the type of graffiti that is tagged alongside businesses and buildings that never asked for the images, and is seen as a violation of the property. In Arizona, graffiti and other criminal damage according to Haley Walters of the News-Herald Havasu News is not taken lightly: “Under Arizona law, criminal damage can be a felony offense if the cost of damage exceeds $1,000” (Walters, Haley).
From California to New Mexico and most all American states in between, graffiti is a cost that all cities must take into consideration and make room for in their budgets when they are deciding how to reduce the amount of damaging graffiti their city experiences. It would be interesting to see an increase in city murals and more local artists express their art on the sides of businesses and other buildings, but before the economy can decide what art they want put up around their cities they must first examine the costs of removing all their unwanted graffiti. Whether or not you see graffiti as art, the fact still remains that there is vandalism in cities that is costing these cities a lot of money and is an issue for their economies.
Works Cited
Brant, David. “Letter: Street Artists Costs Taxpayers, Property Owners.” San Clemente Times, San Clemente Times, 22 Dec. 2016, http://www.sanclementetimes.com/letter-street-artists-costs-taxpayers-property-owners/.
“Graffiti City Wallpapers HD download free.” (Image) Pixels Talk, PixelsTalk.Net, 28 Dec. 2015, http://www.pixelstalk.net/graffiti-city-wallpapers-hd-download-free/.
“Graffiti Removal.” (Image) GHB Window Cleaning Services Incorporated, GHB Window Cleaning, 2017, http://ghbwindowcleaning.com/graffiti-removal.
“Mayor, City Council proposed budgets seek 3 more graffiti removal workers.” (Video) KRQE News 13, YouTube, LLC, 16 May 2016, https://youtu.be/jQ2x9zu5czs.
Walters, Haley. “Rash of graffiti incidents reported this week.” Today’s News-Herald Havasu News, Havasu News, 5 Jan. 2017, http://www.havasunews.com/news/rash-of-graffiti-incidents-reported-this-week/article_c83e8b98-d30f-11e6-8f24-37d658ced576.html.
This is a very interesting topic to write about. I never really thought about how much money cities need to pay to remove unwanted graffiti. I think that if cities encourage and actually hire artists to put graffiti on the outside of their businesses it will make the vandals think it's okay to graffiti on walls of the rest of the city. In my opinion graffiti is art but shouldn't be encouraged to be put on city walls because of the expenses cities need to pay to get the paint removed.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to look at how graffiti affects the economies positively and not just negatively. For example, how many people are drawn to Albuquerque just to look at all the different types of graffiti, and how much money do they spend while there that actually helps the city profit? I think it is important for cities to weigh both sides while addressing the problem to figure out if removing graffiti is actually costing the city more than it may be bringing in.
ReplyDeleteUsing tax dollars to clean up graffiti is really not worth the money, time, or labor like you're saying. Graffiti is clearly apart of the world and street art, and just because peoples' art is taken down doesn't mean they won't do it again. There is an amazing street art destination on the East Side of Milwaukee owned by the East Side B.I.D. and managed by wallpapered.city. I think that this kind of amazing community art is beneficial and it shows the talent that this city holds. If more cities can encourage art space managed by actual companies, I think it could bring a positive outcome in the name of graffiti. It is better to invest money into this creativity rather than banning it even if it causes distraction; because we know that those with a creative bone in their body won't be stopped by just anyone. :)
ReplyDeleteI think it is really interesting how a topic like graffiti can still have such a huge economic impact. I liked how the article was different and showed how economic impact can be on so many things. Also thought it was interesting how some cities encourage it where some are paying thousands of dollars a day to clean it up. The only problem I see is gangs and gang tags. otherwise it is useless to spend money on cleanup and removal.
ReplyDeleteIt is mind boggling to realize the economic impact that graffiti can truly have. Graffiti is a form of art and can help decorate buildings, walls, and posters, but it is often abused and written on many things (like trains). This technical property damage costs a lot of money every year for businesses and the government to remove, which is simply something that could be avoided with proper use of graffiti. Commonly, gangs can use it to spread their image and logo, which can create rivalry amongst gangs to spread their graffiti, ultimately increasing the quantity. In the end, graffiti is a form of art that when used improperly, can cause lots of economic damage and increase costs for businesses and the government across the world.
ReplyDeleteIt's crazy to think that grafitti is such a major cost to the economy. However the truth is it is a waste of money and time to try and clean up. Although morally I don't think it is right to graffiti, the fact is that even once it is cleaned up it will just end up there again. This is because there is no punishment to the person who did the graffiti. Society is the only one who bears the cost because we pay for it, you could say it's a negative externality. In conclusion we should just leave the graffiti alone because it isn't worth the time or money to clean it up when it will only end up there again.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really interesting topic since I never pictured cities paying an a large amount of money to remove graffiti that will eventually end up happening again. Even though I think that using tax dollars to clean up and remove the graffiti is a waste of time, money and labor. However, I also think that negative graffiti used to represent gangs could effect the city. This being said it would be interesting to see the positive and negative effects of graffiti for a city.
ReplyDeleteNever once have I actually thought of the costs to cleaning up graffiti. I always just glance at them and forget about them. It is very interesting how much the graffiti actually costs the city and us the tax payers. Finally I agree with Mackenzie and how some graffiti shouldn't be removed as the sights are pleasant, but one's reflected gangs should be the ones money is spent on.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting perspective on graffiti. While it's true that it costs money to remove graffiti, it would be interesting to see what would happen if government policy on graffiti changed. For example if graffiti were considered more of a nuisance than a crime and companies were charged for the removal of graffiti from their building would that result in less cost to the city.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting take on graffiti. I usually just see it and don't think about the economics behind it, but there is a huge impact to the economy due to graffiti. However, I'm not sure whether it is definitely a negative impact, because there aren't any notes on the positive impacts of graffiti such as tourism. It'd be interesting to see whether that positive impact makes up for the negative impact in certain places.
ReplyDeleteI believe that depending on what the graffiti is trying to say or what it means it can be bad or good. If the graffiti is inappropriate, or references something with a gang it isn't beneficial. If the graffiti is for art it can be a good thing. Either way, if people are vandalizing people's property and writing whatever they want it is bad and the economy will need to consider the cost for fixing their property.
ReplyDeleteI'd never heard of cities actually asking for graffiti. It makes sense to me, since the art can really add personality to a city. In my opinion, if the artwork isn't offensive or on something that's very important, I don't think the effort to remove the graffiti is worth it when it's so expensive. If it's just a random wall that doesn't hold much significance, why not allow some artwork to liven it up?
ReplyDeleteI think it's crazy that people have to spend so much time and money into just cleaning up the graffiti, but I guess thinking about it now, without those people, the streets would look a lot less clean. I know that when I'm in an area that has a ton of graffiti, I think of it as a "bad" area and I tend to try and find a different part of town. I know that people are just trying to share their opinion, however I do believe that vandalizing buildings and things that a lot of people spent a lot of time and money into building, is very unnecessary. I know that pretty recently there was a student from Pewaukee that got arrested for spraying graffiti in a police car parking lot. So this problem isn't only in major cities, but right here in our back yards.
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting to see that our tax dollars are going towards the expense of cleaning the city of graffiti. I never would have thought something so common was such a major cost to the economy. I understand that some businesses might encourage the "art" on their buildings and hire people to do the graffiti, but I feel that is not the city's problem. There might be positive messages in some graffiti but from what I've seen there is a lot of negative messages. Nevertheless, whether if it is a positive or negative message, it is vandalism and the economy is paying the price.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting piece on how graffiti affect cities across the U.S, and the two sides of the argument. If graffiti should be allowed to be appreciated as a form of art or continue to be referred to as a crime and nothing more.
ReplyDeleteIt's incredible how people are vandalizing public property to express themselves through "art". Some businesses encourage artists to create their art on the buildings, they are willing to hire them to create positive messages on their buildings. Although, most of the graffiti I've seen have had only negative messages. I understand that through an artists eyes, the world is their canvas, but their art is causing the economy a bunch of problems and they have to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteI find it bizarre that our city is wasting money/tax dollars on removing graffiti. There are numerous amounts of things that cities need to put above on their priority list for fixing. Even if there is graffiti being taken down each and everyday, there is likely also being graffiti put up each and everyday. Cities need to embrace graffiti, because there is no way that it is going to go away. Graffiti is using too much of our tax dollars on something that at the end of the day doesn't really impact anything negatively.
ReplyDeletePaintings on buildings, if asked to be put there by the owners doesn't qualify as graffiti in my opinion. I believe that the graffiti that is needed to be removed is the vulgar, nonsense, or inappropriate pictures and words that cover the streets. Spending time and money on removing innocent pictures, in my mind, isn't worth it. I believe that many of the pictures can show and enhance the culture of the city, as long as it is positive. I wonder, if instead of removing the graffiti and using tax dollars, time, and labor - people could get their art out there by covering it up with something positive to show the culture of the city. This could either be paid, or volunteer work. However, this is a cycle that will continue, and people will then vandalise the new picture, and it is a burden on the economy.
ReplyDeleteI find it Interesting how cites spend so much effort on covering up graffiti. instead of paying people to cover it up have they thought of making it a community serves for they people they kech doing it. that would save some money on the citisons taxes
ReplyDeleteI agree many people don't take the time to consider the consequences of graffiti, especially the cost. As an artist, I believe in self expression, but I don't believe vandalizing someone else's property is the best form of self expression. I think having a particular place for free anonymous expression which could be a wall would be very cool. I am sure there are a lot of people I know who would be willing to use their artistic talents to add art to the buildings in town. Of course, that's if it's approved.
ReplyDeleteIt was a shock to hear that graffiti is such a cost to cities. It wasn't something I was really expecting. But, after reading this article, I was surprised to hear how much money that costs. I don't think it would be wise to spend that much money on removing it, although it would create jobs. Because we'd be spending unnecessary money on something that could be left alone. Although, I don't always appreciate graffiti, but I think it would be to cool to have organized graffiti in towns, like murals. This would not only make cities more picturesque, but it would create an outlet for those that want to do graffiti in an organized way. Unwanted graffiti I think is something is wrong and often portrays bad pictures, etc. But I think if it was cleaned up and done in the right way it would work out well.
ReplyDeleteI always thought graffiti helped a city gain personality. I feel a slight amount of well drawn graffiti could help gain attention and spice up the average life of people living in the city. However, if this graffiti is shown in mass amount, drawn poorly, or promotes gangs then it is clearly an issue. I feel that promoting a little bit of graffiti could help keep the rates of bad graffiti down.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see how graffiti is a costly problem in cities around the country. Most cities want their places to look clean, professional, and safe. Having lots of graffiti can damage this "perfection" representation. I feel that if we're going to spend hard earned tax dollars on removing graffiti, it should really only be on graffiti that is offensive in some way, shape, or form. Otherwise, there really is no point if it's not hurting anybody and is honestly a waste of money.
ReplyDeleteI agree that graffiti plays a big part in a cities economy. Everyone has their own opinion on it saying if it is good or bad. I feel that a good way to help a city is to not allow graffiti at all so they will not have to discuss which graffiti symbols can stay and which ones can go.
ReplyDeleteI disagree at the point that increases worker supply but I do agree that it increases worker demand. I feel that it is good for a city to have personality in the form of art but if a city needs jobs more than it needs art, the opportunity cost for hiring more workers to remove the art will be the art itself.
ReplyDeleteI found it very interesting to learn about graffiti from the economic standpoint. For as long as I can remember, I though of graffiti as art and I always would say "people should get paid to do this". But after reading this and the comments I grew a new opinion on the topic. I agree, not all graffiti is pretty and most of it is just tagging. So where would we draw the line if it was legal?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you So much for such a great post I was searching a lot about graffiti it looks great and not unfriendly in its context, in short, there has been placed where in the same way as businesses plaster the walls just for advertisement and street signs all over the place, In my opinion graffiti help a city to improve their personality its charming and look.
ReplyDelete