Page 1 of 8

Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:30 pm
by marklingm
Over the spring, Mike Summers shared with me how excited he was to discover ELEPHANT SNOT® Graffiti Remover and how this product would help him in the fight against graffiti throughout our city parks.

Over this past week, Katie and I have taken our sons to various parks throughout Lakewood and it is obvious that the City is losing the fight against graffiti. It is very sad to see vulgarity splattered throughout our playgrounds.

If you see graffiti anywhere in the City, take the time to call the police, your councilperson, the mayor, and report the graffiti at http://onelakewood.com/ReportProblem/.

If you see graffiti on Lakewood City Schools property, contact the school immediately through any of the contact information listed at http://www.lakewoodcityschools.org/content_page2.aspx?cid=466 or simply call the building principal directly.

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:45 pm
by Scott Meeson
Matthew John Markling wrote:Over the spring, Mike Summers shared with me how excited he was to discover ELEPHANT SNOT® Graffiti Remover and how this product would help him in the fight against graffiti throughout our city parks.

Over this past week, Katie and I have taken our sons to various parks throughout Lakewood and it is obvious that the City is losing the fight against graffiti. It is very sad to see vulgarity splattered throughout our playgrounds.

If you see graffiti anywhere in the City, take the time to call the police, your councilperson, the mayor, and report the graffiti at http://onelakewood.com/ReportProblem/.

If you see graffiti on Lakewood City Schools property, contact the school immediately through any of the contact information listed at http://www.lakewoodcityschools.org/content_page2.aspx?cid=466 or simply call the building principal directly.


Removal is one method,finding and prosecuting the offenders is another.

Interesting article:

http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/03/04/24680/lapd-uses-computers-and-smartphones-fight-graffiti/

$$$

Scott Meeson

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:31 pm
by Jim O'Bryan
Matthew John Markling wrote:Over the spring, Mike Summers shared with me how excited he was to discover ELEPHANT SNOT® Graffiti Remover and how this product would help him in the fight against graffiti throughout our city parks.


The place is filthy compared to the tight very clean ship Tony Sinagra ran. Even Tom George
had a zero tolerance stance on Graffiti. I have been photographing it for the past 8 years,
and it is not only way up, is stays up much longer.

.

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:51 am
by marklingm
Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Matthew John Markling wrote:Over the spring, Mike Summers shared with me how excited he was to discover ELEPHANT SNOT® Graffiti Remover and how this product would help him in the fight against graffiti throughout our city parks.


The place is filthy compared to the tight very clean ship Tony Sinagra ran. Even Tom George
had a zero tolerance stance on Graffiti. I have been photographing it for the past 8 years,
and it is not only way up, is stays up much longer.


Jim,

Thanks for leaving work late yesterday to go with me to the Kauffman Park Playground to document the massive amount of graffiti left after I was told by the City of Lakewood that, “The graffiti has been removed from the park.”

Are you going to share those photos with us? Or, has the graffiti become so profane and profuse that it would be inappropriate to share your photographs on this public forum?

I tend to believe that this is not the proper forum for sharing such filth.

A better suggestion might be for everyone to visit their city parks and see for themselves how filthy some parks have become over the past few years and then jump on the Deck and share their experiences … after reporting the graffiti of course. The Kauffman Park Playground would be a great place to start.

Matt

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:40 am
by Meg Ostrowski
I have a lot to say on this subject but not much time right now.

Until I am prepared for the worms that will escape the conversational can, I'll just share that Kauffman Park Friends have tried to keep an eye on this situation. We have reported graffiti and other problems in the past and the city has been fairly responsive.

As my children no longer attend school in the downtown neighborhood, I am less likely to wander the park. I'll touch base with the others in our small group for their assessment.

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:57 am
by Charlie Page
Other than cleanup after the fact, is the City event fighting?

Most, if not every park has video surveillance that is retained for 30 days. Is anyone watching/reviewing the feed? Can police dispatchers can keep an eye on the monitor when not dispatching?

Here’s an idea, make the real time feeds available to the public and we can monitor.

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:08 pm
by J Hrlec
Charlie Page wrote:Here’s an idea, make the real time feeds available to the public and we can monitor.


That would be interesting. Maybe also allow citizens to grab the concealer and cover up the graffiti as well.

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:36 pm
by Jim O'Bryan
Meg Ostrowski wrote:I have a lot to say on this subject but not much time right now.

Until I am prepared for the worms that will escape the conversational can, I'll just share that Kauffman Park Friends have tried to keep an eye on this situation. We have reported graffiti and other problems in the past and the city has been fairly responsive.



Meg

Worried about controlling the message? Not like you.

This is not about Friends of Kauffman Park, this is a very real issue all over the city. After
leaving Kauffman, I went to Madison, Lakewood and other parks, and streets. The city that
for decades was graffiti clear is covered. Meters, signs, U-Verse Boxes, Sidewalks,
Buildings, etc. Of course this was the city where members of City Hall loved graffiti so
much he put it on Facebook to show his friends what residents had written about him on
the walls of redone buildings. Of course that was picked up by Cleveland papers, that
published and republished the story about how at least one lawmaker was no embracing
graffiti. At that point I new it would get bad, I mean if City Hall encourages tagging, then...

This city, maybe because we have so many volunteers with the LO, and LakewoodAlive feel
that volunteers are the way we should go. Well as a last resort. Let's remember we already
pay the 7th highest taxes in the county. We have already given up senior busing, meals,
backyard trash pick up, etc. Certainly had we known we were giving that up while City Hall
got raises, some would gripe. Had we known we were giving that up and having to cover
their asses, would have caused many more comments. But maybe that is it, this group, the
last two regime's new how to cut, bu not cut and keep us clean and safe. Boy I do not
remember reading that in any flyers.

Friends of Kauffman Park, and Keep Lakewood Beautiful are great examples of Lakewoodites
coming together to keep the city nice. But are we the citizens expected to do everything?
What about the money being spent on other luxuries? Why can't some of these groups
that have street festivals pay for services and police, so that instead of the mayor looking
to layoff police he could be looking to hire some?

It would seem to me that we would want to clean up the city first, before we worried about
bringing in more people from outside for our nearly 300 eating establishments. One of the
very real facts brought out in the WestEnd Development Project is bringing people in from
outside can offer some small benefits, but generally it is outweighed by crime in various
forms, including theft, and vandalism. Should we no try to keep the city looking good, or is
all we care about banners and flowers that make us look up instead of at the filthy streets
and graffiti?

Matt, I would rather not post the stuff. I mean it was somewhat odd to see kid graffiti in a
kid park, and some of it was downright funny. Some of it was downright awful. Let me
see what there is, I have stuff from every park, you just want Kauffman?

And Meg, Friends is a wonderful group, do not take this personally.

.

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:23 pm
by Meg Ostrowski
I should have put quote marks around graffiti in my earlier post, as I consider it a public art form, different from vandalism, the criminal act of destruction of property, which I believe fueled this thread.

In my time here, Lakewood has evolved from traditional suburban to suburban with an urban vibe. I welcome the change, secure in the knowledge that we are protected by some of the best law enforcement services the region has to offer when anyone crosses the line.

It is no surprise that with this progression there has been an increase in public expression through the defacement of property and installments of public art.

We welcome a mural at The Beck Center.

http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... =7&t=10408

We celebrate public art.

http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2011/0 ... s-sculptor

We encourage artists to participate in the West End Halloween Window Walk.

http://www.lakewoodchamber.org/site/ima ... 20Form.pdf

So what makes art valid? Permisson? Funding? Mass appeal?

I have often wondered about the flag painted on rock as seen from eastbound Route 2 near Amherst, the concrete and tile work at the small park across from the West Side Market and the image of the sun surrounding the underpass across from Edgewater as seen from the Shoreway.

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:40 am
by Jim O'Bryan
Meg Ostrowski wrote:I should have put quote marks around graffiti in my earlier post, as I consider it a public art form, different from vandalism, the criminal act of destruction of property, which I believe fueled this thread.

In my time here, Lakewood has evolved from traditional suburban to suburban with an urban vibe. I welcome the change, secure in the knowledge that we are protected by some of the best law enforcement services the region has to offer when anyone crosses the line.

It is no surprise that with this progression there has been an increase in public expression through the defacement of property and installments of public art.

We welcome a mural at The Beck Center.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10408

We celebrate public art.

http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2011/0 ... s-sculptor

We encourage artists to participate in the West End Halloween Window Walk.

http://www.lakewoodchamber.org/site/ima ... 20Form.pdf

So what makes art valid? Permisson? Funding? Mass appeal?

I have often wondered about the flag painted on rock as seen from eastbound Route 2 near Amherst, the concrete and tile work at the small park across from the West Side Market and the image of the sun surrounding the underpass across from Edgewater as seen from the Shoreway.



Meg

Being invited?

I would say the difference between Beck and the now legitimized art form "graffiti," which
is still vandalism. The art at the Beck was not just put up. It was approved by the people that
own the property, they have also made sure it can go back to the way it was, with very
little effort.

"Graffiti" style is a legitimate art form and always has been, as all art is legitimate, it is
merely the act against another (the property owner, and the community). But a Keith Haring,

Image
Holds up in print, and on paper.

First, art is nearly always in the eye of the beholder, one person art is another person's pain.
This is magnified, when the owner of the property, does not agree with the message. Then
it becomes the owners pain and loss, which amounts to making them buy art(cost of removal)
that they never wanted.

I can say I have seen some beautiful "graffiti" but I never thought it was right.

Which brings us to public "graffiti" I usually see this appearing in towns that have lost the
battle against graffiti, and their lower class brothers and sisters the taggers. A community
embraces and then amplifies its "graffiti" to hide the fact they have lost the battle.

There are thousands of cool activities for kids, that underline just how cool "graffiti" is. I
always go back to a person brought in to help with the opening of the Library. His consultant
idea was to put up a wall similar to the library, and let kids tag it! There were people at the
table, responsible people, thinking, "hey that is kind of cool." They did not think, what was
actually being taught to the wee ones. "Have an idea, come write it on the side of the library."
This is why the story of of "saving graffiti on my facebook page" is so egregious,
"graffiti" and this was actually "tagging" can never be legitimized in public space unless...
... it has been invited, as it is in Halloween Window Painting. One could argue, that the
library wall was invited, but it just seemed so wrong, a wall like the library, spray paint.

Which draws us back to this thread. Tony Sinagra waged a war on graffiti and ugliness on
the streets. He made it a priority. A parking meter looking bad, paint it. Bus shelter with
graffiti, tell CTS clean it or remove the shelter. He understood the value of a clean, safe
street. Now the mayor, and council will talk about cost, and they are right it is a terrible
expense in labor and materials to clean up. Which is why a zero tolerance has to be set,
and maintained. Because when it is allowed to build, it becomes cost prohibitive, and we
will hear, "we have to close the parks, we have to remove the slide...

Which brings me to another interesting thing. No graffiti by the basketball hoops, or the
baseball field. Which would indicate to me this is being done in daylight hours, and should
be on the video camera 10' from the area.

Meg this is not a referendum on Friends of Kauffman Park.

A city's job, CLEAN, SAFE

FWIW


.

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:58 am
by Gary Rice
Interesting turn to this thread...

As other examples of "approved" public artwork around here, let's not forget the humongous American Flag painted on the side of a downtown building years ago, or those officially approved brightly decorated trash cans around town.

Meg makes an interesting point here about "approved" public artwork, as opposed to underground-type expressions of "art". (whatever THAT word means...)

In a way, that's also been the story of music for the past thousand years or so...that being:

...what a) the government b) society c) the status quo accepts, and then, what "the people" create on their own...

Much of what we refer to as so-called, and accepted "classical type" music, for example, was penned at the behest of the wealthy, the nobility, or the churches.

The barn-dance, or folk/protest, or blues music styles were often considered as being unauthorized at best, and illegal, or subversive, at worst. When rock music came out, having in it at least some of the properties of all of the above, a number of people representing those same powers-that-be (government, wealthy, nobility, churches, etc...) soundly condemned rock music too...

...and just how did that work out for them, by the way? :roll:

Look, I'm no fan of illegal graffiti, nor would I ever want to be thought of as approving any form of public or private property damage by lawbreakers.

(and many people are surprised to learn that, even though I've been the "Guitar Guy" for the Rock Hall, I've never been too happy about the some of the excesses of rock music either)

At the same time, since we, as a community, have legally started splashing all of that colorful paint over virtually every public surface in sight around here, should we be so surprised if a bunch of creative kids start illegally mimicking our example?

(Heck, look at Jimmy's post above....I'm thinking that even Jimmy must think that colorful artwork even looks good here on the 'Deck! Right, Jimmy?) :shock: :lol:

By the way, hasn't the city already been doing a pretty good job of catching and rounding up a number of those illegal taggers?

Back to the banjo...

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:01 am
by Jim O'Bryan
Gary,

One question.

How much does it cost to remove unwanted music?


.

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:13 am
by Gary Rice
Jim,

Many have tried to remove unwanted music at great cost...

and at about the same success rate as the removal of the written word, I'm thinking.

Interesting analogy, indeed.

Back to the banjo... (covered with Lakewood Observer graffiti. :D)

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:03 am
by marklingm
Jim,

Unless you post the photos, the story will not be told.

This is not about art or banjo strings. It's about filth ... pure and simple.

Post the Kauffman Park Playground photos.

Matt

Re: Is the City Losing the Fight Against Graffiti?

Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:01 am
by Gary Rice
I would need to respectfully disagree about posting that stuff.

I don't think that it's a good idea to give an additional exposure to truly objectionable or outrageous vandal markings.

I can certainly understand and fully agree with community outrage at any form of vandalism, regardless of the nature of content or dubious artistic expression involved.

The type of vandalism described is not unknown to this retired school teacher.

Just as a rule of thumb, however...

...the worse the vandalism is, generally speaking, the easier it is to catch the perpetrators. At least that's been my experience.

Someone will tell on them.

It's usually just a matter of time.

In the meantime, let's get rid of it, City of Lakewood. Please.

Back to the banjo...

(Come to think of it, it's about time I changed those strings, too :D )