Comment by mothballed
6 hours ago
Regulating otherwise legal non-commercial speech on someone's own property is insane and sounds unconstitutional. If you want it there, or want it gone, that should be your own prerogative.
6 hours ago
Regulating otherwise legal non-commercial speech on someone's own property is insane and sounds unconstitutional. If you want it there, or want it gone, that should be your own prerogative.
Your comment motivated me to read the way SF frames their regulation:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s...
> Graffiti. "Graffiti" means any inscription, word, figure, marking, or design that is affixed, applied, marked, etched, scratched, drawn, or painted on any building, structure, […examples…], without the consent of the owner of the property or the owner's authorized agent, and which is visible from the public right-of-way […variations…]
> It shall be unlawful for the owner of any real property within the City bearing graffiti to allow the graffiti to remain on the property in violation of this Article 23.
…surely they’ve thought of it already, but it does seem like that would make “yeah, but I said it was fine” a viable way out of that particular ticket, no?
I am sympathetic to the way they frame their motivations: it’s not the speech itself they say they’re regulating, it’s the way your neglect signals impunity, encourages more of it, and degrades the quality of your neighbors’ lives (and property). That and gang stuff.
Yeah that sounds basically impossible to prove since the onus is on them to prove the negative that you never consented to it, but my guess is since it's a civil ticket it goes through some kangaroo court where you are fucked from the get go and the judge is basically the 21st century equivalent of a red-coat.
I think you're overthinking it. I think overwhelming majority of people don't want that crap over their streets. It would be an easy 80+% issue for a politician to pick up so most places have laws that say don't have that ugly crap everywhere. Hence you see the value of neighborhoods with a lot of graffiti and considerably lower than those that don't
Is graffiti causing those neighborhood's value to drop or are businesses and individuals residing in cheaper neighborhoods less equipped to cover the ongoing maintenance costs of removing the ever-recurring graffiti?
There are literally dozens of local ordinances in SF that are blatantly unconstitutional. The issue is that nobody wants to actually pursue they to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, just for a court to eventually say “okay, you’re right.”