Graffiti complaints to the city dropped 29 percent in the first five months of , according to the Sun-Times. A professional guide to politics since Fast food workers and local families rallied at the West Side McDonald's where 7-year-old Jaslyn Adams was shot and killed in April to demand the company fire its top executive.
It's important the community has a place to remember the lives of Mexican-American veterans, whose service in the armed forces is often overlooked, one neighbor said.
Howard Brown Health said it is planning a building project at Hollywood Avenue and Broadway but final details have yet to take form. Children can visit the pop-up clinic a. Friday at 11 E.
Skip to contents. Beverly, Mt. O'Shea argues that the ban hurts locally owned hardware stores in his far Southwest Side neighborhoods by encouraging legitimate customers to shop at competitors in nearby suburbs. The fact there might be a shop closer to them in the city — we need to do more to help our small business owners. No argument there. Robert Angone, a retired Chicago police lieutenant who testified in the case, argues that graffiti could be worse if the ban is lifted. His blog entry on the court battle over spray paint is fascinating reading.
Under the Burke proposal, however, Chicago would join most other American cities in strongly restricting, but not banning spray paint. Fines would be beefed up. Store owners would have to be vigilant, or risk a return of the sales restriction. Burke proposes a compromise to help local businesses and customers without encouraging taggers.
Indeed, according to one of plaintiffs' expert witnesses, Jay Beswick, over 5,, square feet in Chicago is covered with graffiti. The costs associated with graffiti vandalism are substantial to both public and private sectors. The City, along with various public agencies, including the Chicago Transit Authority "CTA" , the Chicago Board of Education, the Chicago Park District and the Chicago Housing Authority, has been forced to allocate scarce resources, to the tune of millions of dollars, in order to effect graffiti removal.
See Defendant's Trial Exhibits 1, , 20, 72, , Additionally, community groups have devoted significant time and energy to removing graffiti from private homes, garages, fences, roof tops, stores and other property. See Defendant's Trial Exhibits , 79, Less quantifiable, but just as important as the cost of removal, are the long-term effects of graffiti on the various neighborhoods of Chicago.
For instance, a tolerance for graffiti could result in physical deterioration and, thus, lower property values. Some also contend that graffiti out-of-control demoralizes a community and makes it ripe for increased criminal activity. The evidence introduced regarding the magnitude of the problem certainly renders the City's effort to combat graffiti laudable. We observe, however, that the magnitude of the problem is not the primary issue before this court.
Rather, as we have previously held, the court's focus remains with the costs and benefits of the measures adopted to eliminate the graffiti problem. In order to demonstrate that the means employed under the challenged ordinances will neither achieve nor move the City closer to achieving the stated local objectives of decreasing the incidents of graffiti in Chicago, plaintiffs have devoted a substantial portion of time presenting evidence regarding who creates graffiti and why. The rationale is apparent, as a comprehensive understanding as to the motivations driving the perpetrators informs the issue of whether the measures in question will serve to deter such conduct.
See R testimony of Dr. Charles J. In this case, the answer to who creates graffiti and why leads to the conclusion that the challenged ordinances will sadly have no deterrent effect whatsoever. Graffiti vandalism in Chicago is caused by three distinct groups: taggers, gang members and miscellaneous groups.
Of the total graffiti in Chicago, these miscellaneous groups likely account for less than five percent, R testimony of Devon Brewer ; see also testimony of Jay Beswick , rendering their conduct a virtual nonissue in terms of efforts to combat graffiti.
Defendant's Trial Exhibits 70, Plaintiffs' expert witness respecting graffiti committed by taggers was Devon Brewer. In connection with his studies of taggers and the hip-hop culture with which they are affiliated, Brewer has developed personal relationships with and interviewed hundreds of taggers, or graffiti writers as they are often referred.
R, According to Brewer, hip-hop graffiti began in the late s in New York and Philadelphia, and gradually spread to other cities in the United States and across the world in the early to mids. There are three types of hip-hop graffiti: tags, throw-ups and pieces. Tags are stylized signatures of a writer's chosen street name. R; see, e. Throw-ups are larger names written in bubble letters with an outline a different color than the interior of the letters.
The most-elaborate type of hip-hop graffiti are pieces, which are elaborate, multi-colored murals. The social organization in the hip-hop graffiti culture revolves around four confederations: classes, crews, networks and the mentor-protege relationships. First, classes refer to the two loosely identifiable groups of hip-hop graffiti writers. Writers begin as taggers, concentrating on the writing of tags and throw-ups.
After paying their dues and developing skill, writers will move on to pieces, and those few writers who achieve significant fame become known as elite writers. Second, crews are loose configurations of friends who write graffiti together. Membership in one crew does not preclude membership in another and, unlike rival street gangs, there is no animosity between crews manifesting itself in physical confrontation.
Crews range in size from members or more. Within a crew, writers share materials and skills. The third social organization in hip-hop graffiti culture is the social network between writers in different crews.
At the top echelon, writers are networked by telephone, written letter and personal visits. At the center of this network is New York City, considered by graffiti writers as "the graffiti Mecca. Finally, mentor relationships are an important part of hip-hop graffiti culture. They are mutually beneficial in that the mentor often imparts knowledge in exchange for materials. Hip-hop graffiti writers are overwhelmingly male. They tend to be teenagers, ranging in age from , although some writers begin earlier and some continue through their 20s and even 30s.
Those in their 20s and 30s, however, tend to be involved in larger and legal projects. Writers come from all racial, ethnic and social backgrounds. They are highly mobile, "children of the transit system. Writers travel throughout the city and suburbs via automobile, public transportation and foot to obtain materials and write graffiti. For many, committing graffiti is the central focus of their lives and the most important aspect of their existence. The commitment to graffiti writing is explained by the common values most writers share.
According to Brewer, hip-hop graffiti writers share two primary values, fame and artistic expression. Brewer explained that achieving fame is a significant driving force for writers, as they compete with each other to obtain status among their peers.
Achieving fame necessitates a high degree of planning, energy and commitment; hip-hop graffiti is not random and spontaneous. Three factors are important to achieving fame: 1 quality of work; 2 quantity of work; and 3 the risk involved in applying the graffiti. Respecting quantity, geographic dispersion is an important aspect, prompting writers to travel not only throughout the City, but also to the suburbs.
To develop high quality, writers often practice in "piece books. Writers also learn from other writers as well as from books, magazines and newsletters devoted to hip-hop graffiti. The risks associated with more valued graffiti include, for instance, that written on the "third rail" of the subway or the top of a freeway sign. The second primary value, artistic expression, refers to the artistic value of the graffiti, an attributed even assigned to tags.
Writers also share two secondary values, power and rebellion. There are two aspects to power, the first being the sense of individual power a writer obtains by controlling various surfaces with his name. The second aspect is the collective power that writers enjoy by being part of a movement or culture. The final value is rebellion, i. Many writers thrive on the push-and-pull with authorities inherent in graffiti writing.
Gang graffiti is the second major type of graffiti in Chicago and is distinct from hip-hop writing. Gangs use graffiti to mark territory and eulogize their dead.
R testimony of Dr. Within gang culture, far from being a random or unplanned activity, "younger members are instructed on where and when to apply graffiti. Gang leaders oversee the placing of graffiti to ensure that unwanted attention is not brought upon the gang. To be sure, according to Police Officer Don Lewis, graffiti is "playing lessor of a role" in gang culture in recent years as "the gang leaders, through the error of their past activities, have realized that it's no longer chic to be the stand out, to be overt.
Although a variety of City witnesses stated, assumed or implied that graffiti is a spontaneous and random act, only three defense witnesses have had any significant contact with taggers or gang members in Chicago.
Robert Angone and Constance Mortell have come in contact with a substantial number of taggers. Each of their testimony, however, corroborates that of plaintiffs' expert, Devon Brewer. For instance, although Angone stated in his affidavit that, "[a] tagger's degree of commitment to graffiti vandalism greatly varies Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit , at Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit 99, at Respecting the motivations of gangs in committing graffiti, the City presented the written testimony of Chicago Police Officer Robert J.
See Defendant's Trial Exhibit His testimony is entirely consistent with that of Drs. Stone and Hutchinson as to who commits gang graffiti and why. See id. Despite their accord as to the motivations of the two major perpetrators of graffiti in Chicago, naturally, the parties' experts rendered polar opinions as to the ultimate issue of deterrence. All three of plaintiffs' experts testified that neither of the challenged ordinances would reduce the level of graffiti in Chicago.
Hutchinson ; see also R, , testimony of Jay Beswick. On the other hand, the three City witnesses who have had contact with taggers or gang members in Chicago testified that the ordinances would be valuable tools in combatting graffiti, likely shortening the span of time over which an individual commits graffiti, deterring new vandals from engaging in the crime, and reducing the number and extent of incidents of graffiti vandalism.
This court finds that the extraordinary commitment on the part of those who commit graffiti points to the conclusion that the ordinances in themselves will not deter the incidents of graffiti in Chicago. Commitment alone, of course, is insufficient to overcome all obstacles of regulation. Nonetheless, when such commitment is viewed in conjunction with other factors, including 1 the availability of alternate sources of spray paint and large markers, 2 the availability of substitute materials to effect graffiti, and 3 the ordinances' failure to increase the risk of apprehension, it becomes evident that the ordinances in question have little possibility of furthering the City's objective.
Both Drs. Charles Cicchetti and Louis Wilde, designated by the City to testify as to the likely impact of the challenged ordinances on the level of graffiti in Chicago, approached the task from the perspective of a cost-benefit, economic theory. R Cicchetti ; R Wilde. We accept this theory as sound. Cicchetti and Wilde's respective opinions, however, that the ordinances in fact will result in an over decrease in graffiti rests on an empirical assumption that the regulation will in fact increase the time, material and transportation costs associated with obtaining spray paint and large markers from alternate sources.
The evidence presented by plaintiffs is contrary to this assumption. The parties have stipulated that "[a] majority of persons who commit graffiti vandalism in Chicago are Chicago resident, and a minority of these persons are not Chicago residents. For those non-residents committing graffiti vandalism in Chicago, it is axiomatic that the challenged ordinances have no impact on their cost of obtaining spray paint and large markers.
For those who reside in Chicago, there is easy access, via both public and private transportation, to the suburbs where there are literally hundreds of outlets selling spray paint and large markers. See Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit 2. Respecting the most often graffiti vandalized property, CTA buses and subway cars, these mobile targets travel to and from the suburbs on a routine basis.
See Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit 1. For many of the permanent property targeted by graffiti vandals, transportation time to the suburbs to acquire spray paint or large markers is less than ten minutes. As previously noted, both taggers and gang members in fact sojourn to the suburbs on a frequent basis.
Consequently, given the availability of spray paint and large markers in the suburbs, the familiarity with and easy access to the suburbs of both gang members and taggers, and their strong motivation to obtain such items to commit graffiti, it is plain that the increased cost, if any, of obtaining spray paint and large markers will not decrease the incidents of graffiti in Chicago. Additionally, to the extent that some graffiti vandalism may be discouraged from procuring spray paint and large markers in the suburbs, that does not mean that these individuals will have no access to these materials.
First, as Lt. Angone readily admits, a large underground market for spray paint and large markers already exists in Chicago. R; see also Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibit Second, as Constance Mortell admitted, even if only a small number of writers or their suppliers went to the suburbs, they would likely bring back enough spray paint and large markers to supply other children who are part of the problem.
0コメント