Painting the bigger picture
Jacques Marcoux, Volunteer Staff
You may vaguely recall Sam Katz’s spray paint action plan unveiled back in 2006, designed to curb the defamation of public property in Winnipeg. In a nutshell, this proposed bylaw would ban the sale of spray paint within city limits to persons under the age of 18 and would criminalize the possession of spray paint by those not accompanied by an adult. There would also be certain provision on the retailer’s end. The precarious proposal is once again under the spotlight, as Bob Okabe, the supervisor of public service operations for the Winnipeg public works department, revived the issue at City Hall last week, hoping the bylaw will get rushed through this time around.
To put the problem in perspective, the city currently sets aside $1.2 million per year for cleaning up graffiti, up from $641,000 last year — more than mere pocket change that could otherwise be better spent.
Similar bylaws have been passed in other major U.S. cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. And just last year the city of London, Ont. adopted the ground-breaking law with the hopes of reducing property vandalism.
The knee-jerk reaction of many citizens and city councillors has been that such regulation on the sale on aerosol paint is a flagrant overreaction and tramples on the most basic of freedoms. Although they are correct that implementing such a bylaw sets a dangerous precedent, for everyone’s sake I will go down this slippery slope. Rather than debate whether this bylaw constitutes an encroachment on personal freedoms, let’s talk facts.
There are several examples of cities across the world that have adopted bylaws banning the sale of spray paint and felt-tipped markers to minors; ostensibly the problem is not limited to North America. These municipal initiatives, all christened with charming taglines such as “Operation Wipeout” and “Graffiti Action Program,” offer little to no reporting pertaining to the success of the programs. In fact, according to a study by the Australian Retailers Association, there is no documented evidence that an outright ban on spray paint to minors reduces the quantity of graffiti.
Given that the regulation of aerosol paint is a fairly novel approach to combating vandalism, there is very little concrete and reliable information to either support of oppose such a bylaw. What we can do, however, is compare the outcomes of a similar bylaw and draw our conclusions from those findings.
Since the Second World War, the sale of cigarettes has generally been banned to persons under the age of 18, with a few jurisdictional exceptions. With this regulation effectively in place for over 60 years, one does not require much astuteness to see that it has failed miserably since the very day it was introduced. The numbers do not lie. According to the American Lung Association, close to 90 per cent of addicted smokers began smoking prior to reaching adulthood. Furthermore, it is estimated that in 2001 approximately 28 per cent of high school students smoke on a regular basis. Today, there exists almost a worldwide ban on smoking in the public domain, with Winnipeg introducing such measures in 2003; and now, to everyone’s disbelief, Paris followed suit earlier this year. Although smoking rates are now at their lowest level ever, one could argue that a complete ban on smoking in public is also an infringement on constitutional freedoms. Once again, let’s not go down that road, as it leads to nowhere.
The bottom line is that no matter the restrictions, people will continue to find ways to get their hands on the goods they demand. Now that we have established that anything short of an outright ban and huge levies on the sale of spray paint will have no significant effect on graffiti in our fair city, what can be done? Well, we can start by looking at the problem from another direction and ask ourselves not how to deal with the symptom, but rather with the disease. Why are adolescents resorting to tagging railway cars, bridges, and any surface in the downtown area with graffiti?
Although I hesitate to label them as artists rather than punks or hoodlums, I must concede that some of the work they do is quite impressive. That’s not to say that all these kids are aspiring artists (certainly some of the work is territorial gang markings or simply brazen vandalism), but surely there are more proactive ways to channel these abilities to the community’s benefit. In fact, I would argue that many neighbourhoods have actually done just that and simply need to extend the effort. You may have noticed that throughout the city there are several businesses that have contracted local artists to paint murals on their otherwise bland, whitewashed brick walls. There are too many to name, but we have all seen them. Alternatively, when I was in high school, I remember the administration allowed students to purchase a surface of the hallways walls and, provided it was approved, could tag to their heart’s desire. And if I recall correctly, many of the frequent taggers in the school took advantage of the opportunity to showcase their talents in a responsible and legal manner to everyone’s content.
As far as preventing those who deface property for the sake of pissing people off from doing so — I am not sure there is solution. Stiffer penalties, community work (remember Casper?) or graffiti hotlines will continue to have minimal effects and inflate taxes as we have seen in other cities. Challenging charter rights by introducing a ban is like walking on thin ice. What is one to do? I guess this is just the price we pay to live in a free society.
Jacques Marcoux is a fourth-year commerce student.
