By Audrey Levine, Staff Writer
Residents say penalties on owners are too harsh
Objections to a recently introduced ordinance that would require property owners to remove graffiti within a certain period of time or face fines led to the Borough Council unanimously agreeing to pull it before it was approved Monday.
”If you’re going to do this ordinance, leave the part about the property owners out,” said Michael Chabra, of Onka Street. “I don’t think we should be penalized as taxpayers.”
Councilman Ted Petrock made the motion to remove the ordinance, and the action was unanimously (Councilman Ken Otrimski was absent) agreed upon by the council.
Many residents complained the ordinance would require property owners to remove any graffiti within 90 days of the date a note is sent by the borough. If it is not removed within the required time, the borough would be authorized to take care of the removal and require the property owner to pay back any costs incurred by the municipality.
”Why should I be burdened to clean my building when I didn’t give (the perpetrators) permission to do this?” Mr. Chabra asked. “You are penalizing the property owners.”
Mr. Chabra said this might lead some to resort to grabbing a can of paint and covering over just the graffiti itself, creating an even bigger eyesore in the long run.
”There should be a fund set up if we don’t catch the perpetrators,” he said.
For several of the residents, they said they would prefer the borough use its own resources to do the cleanup, and they expressed a willingness to pay for this service in taxes.
”The cleanup should be on the tax dollar, not the individual,” said Joe Gazo, of North Street. “My tax dollars pay for the Department of Public Works. I want you to clean it.”
Councilman Ed Komoroski, in a separate interview, said he would not be opposed to having the taxpayers pay for general cleanup of the graffiti throughout the town. He said property owners could file a complaint with police, then go about hiring a contractor to do the cleanup after which they could submit an invoice to the borough for reimbursement.
Still, Mr. Komoroski said, in the long run, he believes removal of the graffiti is the responsibility of the property owner, especially because of liability issues with the maintenance work.
”It’s going to have to be the responsibility of the owners,” he said. “As long as it’s gone.”
Property owner Dean Shepard, who had three of his buildings hit by the three juveniles arrested for spray painting 38 buildings March 7, said he agrees the property owners are going to have to take responsibility for the cleanup.
”Either the Department of Public Works and the taxpayers all foot the bill, or the property owners pay,” he said. “But when you own property, you have to figure in for empty apartments, maintenance and other work. Unfortunately, I don’t see any other way, and it comes down to who’s going to pay.”
According to Mr. Petrock, it is about making someone responsible if the perpetrators are not caught.
”If you don’t take care of it, who will?” he asked. “Some will let it go. But someone has to be responsible if the person is not caught. No matter how we word the ordinance, it will go back to you somehow.”
As originally written, the ordinance also offers a reward of up to $500 to any person who provides information that leads to the apprehension and conviction of anyone committing an act of graffiti. But this did little to appease the residents.
”The reward seems to accomplish nothing,” said Frank Page, of Louis Street. “It comes from the taxpayers who you’re charging.”
Residents also questioned if there was a way to get the recently charged juveniles or any future perpetrators to perform the total cleanup, but Borough Attorney Francis Linnus said that is a final decision for only the courts to make when the case goes before Superior Court.
”The juveniles may be required by law to pay restitution or do community service to remove the graffiti,” he said. “When you have juveniles, you are subject to the state law, and you have to go through that process.”
This ordinance, Mr. Linnus said, is mostly designed to take care of the removal in the event a perpetrator is not caught. In the situation of the juveniles arrested earlier this month, the courts will decide what the punishment will be, he said.
”If the party is not caught, this ordinance provides notification by the borough and requests that the owner takes care of it,” he said. “All of this is a policy decision. The state law does not require this ordinance.”
Residents questioned whether the juveniles could be tried as adults or if the borough could recommend some sort of punishment that would include community service to clean the graffiti, but Mr. Linnus said this is all the decision of the courts.
”Municipalities are creatures of the state,” he said. “We cannot do what the state doesn’t allow for punishment.”
Still, Council President Sue Asher said Manville police are looking to prosecute the three juveniles charged in the March 7 incident to the fullest extent of the law.
In addition, Mr. Linnus said, he is looking into whether there is an opportunity to include in an ordinance information about parental liability in the case of a juvenile.
”In order for this, a parent must have knowledge that the juvenile was predisposed to the crime,” he said.
Andy Henkel, president of the Veterans of Manville, said he understands there is difficulty in knowing what can be done to punish youth charged with these crimes of vandalism.
”The chances are the parents are not going to be able to foot the bill,” Mr. Henkel said, citing the Veterans of Foreign Wars post, on Washington Avenue, had graffiti on the brick that will most probably not come off. “It’s going to be very expensive. We have a porous brick building, and I don’t think a cleaner will get everything off.”
As for the costs, Mr. Komoroski said the graffiti falls under the category of vandalism for insurance purposes so property owners will not necessarily be spending thousands of dollars to clean the buildings.
”Depending on your deductible, you could get money back,” he said.
Despite all the concerns, Mr. Komoroski said he is hoping the council can continue to critique the ordinance and have it reintroduced within the next few meetings.
Still, residents said they felt there had to be another way to remove the graffiti through taxpayer money or community service, and the responsibility should not fall squarely on the victims.
”I shouldn’t be forced to put cameras up to watch my building,” Mr. Chabra said. “I don’t think the solution is in this ordinance that we have to forcibly clean the properties.”