As the amounts of graffiti increased drastically, Kelling and Wilson’s (1982) Broken Window Theory came into play as graffiti spread through communities that had previously never experienced graffiti. Most communities were not prepared for the wave of graffiti that was to hit their neighborhoods in the 80’s and 90’s, nor were they prepared for the negative impact that it would have on their economic and social wellbeing. Residents, business owners and municipalities were now faced with the predicament of choosing how to deal with the graffiti. On one hand, those that chose to remove the graffiti seemed to be in a losing battle paying thousands of dollars on painting over walls, pressure washing concrete and brick or replacing plastics and glass surfaces only to have the graffiti return each time it was removed. Conversely property owners that chose not to remove graffiti witnessed their property become covered by tags and become impacted financially with loss of business, and depreciating land value (Weisel, 2011).
With their long standing relationship with graffiti it is no surprise that one of the first cities to successfully react to the massive increase in graffiti was New York. Recognizing the detriment of street level graffiti on communities and its effect on behaviour in relation to crime and community disengagement, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani took a hard line approach. In attempt to eradicate graffiti and other “street visible” crime, Giuliani mandated the immediate removal of indications of visual distress including graffiti, littering, vandalism, street level prostitution and drug dealing. Giuliani and leaders of other communities stance to battle graffiti not only demanded its immediate removal, but also provided guidelines for increased policing, and severe legal action against graffiti vandals (Kelling, 2009). For the first time vandals that were caught were subjected to the full extent of the criminal process just like any other offender of serious crimes with graffiti writers being prosecuted, fined and even sentenced to jail time (Bates, 2014).
To combat train and subway graffiti, any train that was hit with even the smallest amount of graffiti was pulled from service and not exposed to the public until it was completely cleaned. This initiative although necessary comes at a large price, costing taxpayers millions annually for the cleaning, removal and repair of graffiti (Sawyer, 2016). Other states and cities have followed the model of New York in understanding the seriousness of graffiti and investing in graffiti removal, and prevention initiatives. The active approach that many cities have taken in removing and preventing graffiti has been met with mixed feelings, spawning debate on several levels. The expenditure that many cities invest in attempting to reduce graffiti combined with the differing social opinions of graffiti have opened the door to a great deal of controversy in the value and social impact of graffiti leaving many municipalities, community organizations and law enforcement agencies unsure of the direction for the future.
9.1 Aesthetic Value and Social Impact
In regards to understanding the social impact of graffiti in communities several factors are routinely discussed with a great deal of controversy. Advocates of graffiti stand firmly stating that graffiti is artistic expression and is a healthy element that enhances society (White, 2014) where others contest that graffiti is a detriment to society (Weisel, 2011). In attempting to negotiate this, it is important to first understand what impact graffiti has on society. Because graffiti is a visual element that exists within communities some factors should be addressed to fairly assess its influence and to determine its positive or negative impact.