Off the Wall

Open Letter to Senator Johanns:

2010-11-16T14:59:00.000-08:00

Senator Johanns:

Tomorrow you will be part of a hearing on the Transportation Security Administration. I realize that this is an issue that many American's have passionate views on. I'd like for you to consider something for a moment: Did you know you're more likely to die on the way to the airport to catch your flight then you are to actually die by the hand of a terrorist on a flight?

Look, I understand that terrorism gets a lot of coverage on the news however lets be honest, the best weapon against terrorism is each individual American standing up and protecting not only themselves but others. The heros on flight 93, the flight that had Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, and the flight that had the Christmas Day bomber all proved that.

Senator, please, don't let the TSA keep implementing over reaching security policies in the name of protecting us. It's one thing to have everyone go through a metal detector and such. It's dramatically different to have those x-rays be taken. I don't have children yet but my wife and I will never allow those photos to be taken of our kids. And I am not comfortable with anyone patting down or touching my children. It's inappropriate and not something that we should be doing as a free nation.

Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano recently said that if people don't wish to fly they can choose not too, they have that right. I have just issued a moratorium on all air travel for my company. In 2009 we spent over $45,000 on airline tickets and related travel, however as Secretary Napolitano has suggested it is my right not fly any longer. Because of the over reaching and unnecessary security policies I will be exercising that right.

Respectfully,

Tim

Timothy Kephart
CEO
Graffiti Tracker Inc
1-877-678-3872 ext. 7
www.graffititracker.net

Americans can be separated into two groups. Those that would have stayed and fought at the Alamo and those that would have hopped over the walls and run.

Gov 2.0 Innovation Challenge

2009-11-13T15:43:00.001-08:00

Broken Windows and graffiti don't go together

2008-11-27T04:28:00.001-08:00

Yea yea yea, I know, broken windows theory bla bla bla, litter, more crime, bla bla bla. I say that with sarcasm because as much as I agree with elements of the Broken Windows Theory I don't like how it's carried into areas where it's not meant to cover.

For example, a lot of people say that if you paint over graffiti right away this discourages vandals from putting up more graffiti. Seriously? Does anyone truly believe that? Graffiti vandals aren't motivated to put up graffiti because the area they live in is run down. They're motivated to put up the graffiti because they seek the fame and notoriety that comes with putting up their moniker. The idea that if you paint over the graffiti quickly that somehow the vandal is going to stop putting up graffiti is wrong.

Yes, the first step in combatting the graffiti problem is to paint over the graffiti immediately, but don't stop there. Don't stop and think that because the graffiti is being painted over quickly that somehow that's going to fix the problem. Don't believe me? Take a look at California. How long has that "abatement only" strategy been implemented? And what has happened to the graffiti problem in the past 15 years? Did it go down? It didn't. It grew out of control. Fortunately, within the past few years cities have looked for a new approach to the problem and we're proud of the great success that they've had. It's great to see cities like Fontana, Escondido, Pico Rivera, Rancho Cucamonga, Ventura, Palmdale and many others have such great success. Any time a city can use a program that reduces their graffiti and pays for itself in restitution recovery you know it's a win win situation. But each of these cities took that critical first step beyond just painting over the graffiti and decided to give law enforcement something they could use to help stem the problem.

You Have Got to be Kidding Me!

2008-08-27T03:07:00.001-07:00

I'm not one to be voicing my opinion when it comes to politics or elections, especially the upcoming Presidential one but in light of this article, I'll make an exception:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-et-streetart23-2008aug23,0,4609510.story

In case you don't feel like reading the article let me give the cliff notes version. There's a guy, who does graffiti. In this case he did a large mural of Barack Obama. He was partly inspired to do the mural because of Obama's message and positions. He also says that he drew inspiration from Soviet propaganda posters...well done there. That on it's own is enough to give someone pause, however the real kicker to this is Obama's personal note written to the graffiti vandal:

"The political messages involved in your work encouraged Americans to believe they can help change the status quo. Your images have a profound effect on people, whether seen in a gallery or on a stop sign."

Whether seen in a gallery or on a stop sign. WOW! One more time just so you can be sure you read that right "Whether seen in a gallery or on a stop sign." Signed by the Presidential candidate himself. Are you kidding me? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Presidential candidate just endorsed graffiti vandalism.

Parents can be so humbling...

2008-07-17T15:07:00.001-07:00

As you can see to the right of this post my Twitter information is posted. I know Twitter has gotten a lot of flack lately because of their servers running slow etc but I like them. I like them so much that I decided to tell my parents about them. As in, my 77 and 75 year old parents. The conversation went a little something like this: "So I've gotten into this new things called Twitter." Uncomfortable long pause - "Timmy we don't talk like that and would appreciate you not speaking that kind of filth over the phone to us." With shock and quick relief I realize they think it's some nefarious new activity that their angel son who's never done anything wrong has gotten into. So I respond by saying "No, no, you have it all wrong. Twitter's not like that. It's a following program...where people can follow what your doing and see where you are and stuff." Again, another long pause. "Isn't that stalking? Why do you want to be stalked? Kep, is our son into being stalked now? Son, what happened when you were in California?" Then I realized, what a lost cause this was. Trying to explain Twitter to people who have know contextual understanding of this new technology is, lets say challenging.

Then though I realized, we face the same challenges at Graffiti Tracker. We sometimes make the mistake in assuming that every person we talk to understands the complexities of a graffiti problem. When I first started working in this field I was surprised by how many law enforcement officers knew very little about graffiti and did not know how to read the graffiti. For our analysts it's like being proficient in another language. Many of the cities we get contacted by are just now beginning to have a problem with graffiti and don't have the years of being affected by this problem and so some of the solutions we talk about seem as foreign to them as Twitter did to my parents. The challenge is on us at Graffiti Tracker to be as thorough as possible in explaining graffiti, the solutions that work, and the ones that don't and to be as open to questions as possible. Just don't ask what happened to me in California.

Why do you love Pico?

2008-07-08T02:09:00.001-07:00

I was recently doing a presentation on graffiti. Typically, I talk about different cities that have been successful at reducing graffiti and increasing restitution. Afterwards, I was talking to some folks and I was asked why I speak so much about Pico Rivera. I told the person that I wasn't aware that I did but then when talking to some of my staff they commented that I always talk about Pico and mention them more then other cities. So later I got to thinking and wondering why that was.

They've been a great client to work with but really, all of our clients have been fun and great to work with. So that couldn't be the reason. They've had great success reducing graffiti, but so has Escondido, and Carson and others so that really doesn't put them over the top. And then I started thinking about when they first started. And now I know why I love and talk so highly of Pico Rivera as a client.

When they first signed on, they knew that Graffiti Tracker would be a good product, but they were still new in getting personnel from the law enforcement side involved. Then came the pivotal moment for them. I know this may sound strange, but they asked for help. Investigating graffiti was something totally new to them so the deputies weren't familiar with graffiti. They called and asked for some personalized training in how to read graffiti, understand the subculture better, and investigate graffiti. And the results? Well let's see: 42% reduction in graffiti since September 2006; over $100,000 in restitution ordered by the courts because of prosecutions; over $30,000 collected in restitution (which so far they've paid for our contract just in restitution alone, well done there!); became the leaders in Los Angeles county in filing graffiti cases with the DA's office; and the list could go on and on and on.

So why do I mention all of this? Because sometimes its OK to ask for help. We're getting a lot of inquiries from cities who are just starting to have a graffiti problem. As a result, they're experiencing the same frustrations that many cities in the Los Angeles area already experienced with regards to graffiti solutions. If you're reading this, and you are one of those cities, pick up the phone, give us a call. We absolutely want to help you out and can answer many of your questions and point you in the right direction. I started Graffiti Tracker because I saw the impact we could have on graffiti. There's no doubt you too can be like Pico Rivera and many of our other clients.

Due to rising fuel costs we've been forced to do nothing...

2008-06-24T02:51:00.001-07:00

I'm not sure if you're aware but fuel costs have gone up. I say this with much sarcasm because everyday it seems like another story is posted about how rising fuel costs have caused someone to do the unthinkable. Probably my favorite so far is the story on CNN about how the rapid rise in fuel costs have forced people to switch to "push mowers" to save money on gas. I recently told my new wife that we can't have kids for a while because we can't afford the gas to take her to the hospital when she goes into labor. "Sorry babe, rising fuel costs." This is getting ridiculous.

I understand that fuel costs have gone up but what I don't understand is this need by the media to constantly tell us in different creative ways about how fuel prices have risen and how that's impacted us. First it's the how much gas has risen. Then it's how Bob and Betty can't take the kids cross country this Summer so they invent this term "staycation" and cleverly weave it into our daily lexicon. Then it's how police are getting more creative at saving gas by increasing bike patrols and foot patrols. Then to keep the story going they come up with these crazy stories like the one originally mentioned above about how people are using push mowers now instead of gas mowers.

Let me tell you how asinine that is. First, the average person spends about $60 in gas a year on mowing their lawn. A decent push mower will cost you about $120. So in an attempt to save $60 a year on gas you've spent 2 years worth of your lawn mower gas right away. For being that stupid, I hope in two years gas prices drop back down. I have a push mower in my garage because when I first bought my house I figured I'm going to be a man and go old school on my grass. After one time of doing that and my fat ass wheezing away from pushing it up hill that came to a quick halt. Needless to say Forrest Green Lawn Service does good work and apparently when I'm sleeping.

Now, do I think that there's really a trend in America with people switching to push mowers? No. Here's what happened. A national lawn and garden company has a PR firm on retainer and the PR firm, in order to get more press coverage for their large account, pitched a story to the news outlets about how people were switching to push mowers. It was a way for them to capitalize on the hot topic. It's sad and is part of what's degrading journalism today. I see this a lot with stories on graffiti. Statistics being thrown out about how cities have reduced graffiti 90%. Now let's be reasonable. If any city was able to reduce graffiti 90% whoever designed that strategy would be an instant millionaire.

At Graffiti Tracker we're very happy when we see cities reduce graffiti 20 to 30% or can help a city recover 30 or 40 thousand dollars in restitution but a 90% reduction? That's ridiculous. And instead of scrutinizing the facts the paper just printed the story nearly verbatim from the press release. For our company, scrutinize what we say because we don't put out any releases with that kind of nonsense. For us to determine that a city is being successful we look at 3 factors: Have arrests/charges increased? Has the amount of restitution ordered/collected increased enough to cover the cost of our contract? And has the amount of graffiti decreased from the previous year? Now if all of those 3 criteria are met then you'll see us sing the praises of that city and rightfully so because they've definitely done their part in tackling their graffiti problem and the people in those communities need to know that. Anything short of that is not a success in our books and that means we need to work harder - not fluff numbers in hopes that someone doesn't notice.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to look into buying a camel for our field representative, Ricky, to use when meeting and training our clients.

It's Everywhere: Graffiti or Advertisements

2008-06-18T03:04:00.001-07:00

This is slightly off topic but I have to say it. Advertisements are destroying television and the internet as we know it. Online advertisements are totally destroying the news media. Log onto cnn.com and see what I mean. Look at how many videos there are to watch to get the news story. And look at how the headlines are portrayed: "Girl chases thief from lemonade stand" or "Gator snuggles up to SUV tire in Ohio" Now who wouldn't want to find out who the bastard was that stole from some kids lemonade stand or want to see the cute little gator snuggling (gators by the way have the most powerful bite of all things on earth - about 2,100 pounds per square inch, about the same force as a mid size sedan falling on you) but apparently they "snuggle" with tires? Of course you're going to want to read those stories. Sorry, you can't. You have to watch the video. But before you watch the video you have to watch Nortel steal 30 seconds of your life that you'll never get back. This is just one of many ways in which advertisements are destroying the purity of the internet. And finally, I think people are starting to revolt.

Don't believe me? Take a look at satellite radio and it's growth in the past few years. So good that the government decided to try and block that merger, yet Exxon and Mobile were given the green light with barely a look over. HBO has shows that draw ratings comparable to cable channels. Think about it, a pay for service cable company can compete with a "free" service station. Same thing with Showtime, although until recently they really didn't churn out the shows like HBO had in the previous 10 years.

So what can you attribute this too? Is it because regular cable has less quality shows? Doubtful (The Shield, Nip/Tuck, Rescue Me, Friday Night Lights, etc). Two words DVR and Tivo. And why do you think it is that so many people now are switching to using a DVR or Tivo? Because the advertisements are simply destroying everything enjoyable that the world of creativity has to offer. Ok maybe not everything but you get my point. People are fed up with seeing the same boring commercials play out over and over in the most mundane way. So now they wait 20 minutes before sitting down and watching their favorite shows, thus eliminating the commercials. Still don't believe me? When was the last time someone watched the Super Bowl and skipped through the commercials? Why would you? They're entertaining, funny, and worth talking about. By the way, news flash, there are other commercials out there that become cultural reference points for us that don't have to play during major sporting events (Mac guy vs PC guy; Burger King eat like a snake). Commercials of some CEO in a suit walking down a back alley talking about how he's changing a cell phone company that's lost damn near all it's customers isn't going to cut it. Nor is the commercial from a credit card company showing two evil looking characters making a credit card which really looks like an evil credit card company making an evil credit card - good thinking Capital One. You're definitely not in my wallet since you dumped David Spade.

So what does this all have to do with graffiti? The same as what I mentioned in my previous blog. For those graffiti artists out there that actually have talent and skill, it would benefit you to get the graffiti vandals to stop destroying peoples property. Until then, your work will be just like the commercials that get skipped over by consumers because they're all lumped into the same category as boring or worse - annoying. Until graffiti vandalism is reduced to near zero graffiti artists will never gain the legitimacy that they're seeking.

Message to Taggers

2008-04-12T02:29:00.001-07:00

It's no secret that those that do graffiti vandalism hate my guts. Most think that as a company Graffiti Tracker is out to some how silence the voices of inner city America. That couldn't be further from the truth. Anytime anyone wants to debate me about graffiti I'm more than willing to participate in an open, honest and adult discussion.

That all being said, I have a message for those who participate in doing Graffiti Art: Get those doing graffiti vandalism to stop. They are destroying what you're working for. Your goal with graffiti art is to get these masterpieces that you've perfected visible to a mass audience. Graffiti vandals are making it impossible for you to achieve this. How? Because most graffiti, nearly 99% of graffiti that cities are spending millions to abate is either in the form of graffiti vandalism or gang graffiti. Don't believe me? Take a drive up the 405 Freeway in Los Angeles near LAX. Look at the graffiti that is on the sound walls.

For those of you who have skills and can legitimately call your work "art" you should be outraged that someone would try to pass off their cursive written name on a wall as "art." You should be telling the kids in the communities that what they're doing is not "art" and because they keep doing that they are causing the graffiti artists to get a bad wrap. It is in your best interest to make clear distinctions between graffiti artists and graffiti vandals. People like Mark Echo, who are so quick to take city governments to court should be just as vocal condemning the actions of those who put up graffiti vandalism on people's property.

Anyone can write their name on a wall. Anyone can write their name in cursive. Simply writing "smokes" on a wall is not "art." I think that for most people if they had to drive the freeways and see these large elaborate murals that the Graffiti Artists had permission to write, then they'd be more sympathetic to your cause. But writing "smokes" or "risk" or some other adopted moniker is not "art" by any stretch of the imagination. If you're a true Graffiti Artist, it would help your cause greatly if graffiti vandalism was eliminated. Only then could you legitimize and distinguish yourselves from graffiti vandals and then start seeking out permission from the appropriate agencies to get your work displayed in the right venue.

Cameras

2008-03-30T01:51:00.001-07:00

"If you are a tagger in the city of Denver, you're going to get caught,"

This was a statement that appeared in a recent news article about the lack of any arrests from the cameras that have been deployed in Denver to catch taggers. I highlight this statement not to jump on the bashing ban wagon but to illustrate that it's statements like that that absolutely drive me crazy. I'm going to be overly blunt in this writing because I hear these statements all the time and they are so hollow. As a company we try to stray away from these statements. I prefer the old adage of "walk softly and carry a big stick." Ergo, let the increased arrests, decreased vandalism, and increased restitution do the talking for you. There are so many different ideas that agencies or vendors come up with that try to get sold as a magic bullet to solve a communities graffiti problem.

Take for example one city in Los Angeles county. After meeting with them they decided it would be best to buy cameras and place them all over the place. # of arrests = 0. Why is that you think? Could it be that the taggers can see the camera and thus avoid tagging in that location? Now you might be thinking "Exactly! See, we stopped them from tagging those locations." Now consider this: Any city has over 5,000 suitable targets that vandals can hit and put up their graffiti. So, what are you going to do? Put 5,000 cameras up and try to photograph each location? It doesn't make sense. Cameras are great as a deterrent to specific locations like parks and such but as an overall strategy to stop graffiti they fail. And cameras should never be sold as a panacea. But they are. And this particular city wasted thousands of dollars and had zero impact on the overall problem. Without a doubt the locations they were deployed did not get vandalized and that's good, but again, that just means the graffiti vandals are going to locations without cameras.

Some could argue that I'm biased because it's in our financial interest for a city to use our Graffiti Tracker software. My response to that though is simple. Graffiti Tracker was born out of nearly a decades worth of intense research. During that time not only did I research graffiti but then also tested my theories regarding investigation and intelligence with several cities. Once they were successful we then went and made Graffiti Tracker a product that was marketable. It's not some overnight idea that we slapped together. And that's why our cities are extremely successful. Define successful you say? Well, how about this: The city of Pico Rivera has more than paid for our services in the amount of restitution they've collected. The same holds true for San Jacinto as well. The city of Escondido has been so successful that they've actually reduced the # of crews that they have painting out graffiti plus recovered over $27,000 in restitution that they would not have gotten. How's that for salary savings!

Yea it may sound self serving when I talk about our solution but our solution works. When cities contact us we point them to any one of our clients and let them talk to the users. Our customers are satisfied and we couldn't be more happy to have them. They were willing to try a different approach and now they're reaping the rewards in salary savings, increased quality of life, decreased vandalism, and increased restitution.

So if you're a city and you're thinking about getting cameras, 1, understand that they won't have an impact on your overall graffiti problem. 2, they're an excellent tool to stop graffiti for specific locations, and 3, don't make statements like the one at the top.

Graffiti Art vs Graffiti Vandalism

2008-03-27T01:57:00.001-07:00

First a few responses. In the past some have said that graffiti is a form of opposition. An opposition to what exactly? Who are they opposing? If someone creates the moniker "Snoopy" and tags that up all over the place, what opposition is that referring too? My experience with taggers is that they are out for the fame and notoriety. There is no secret agenda on their part to oppose the forces of government. Also, for those that think graffiti vandals have artistic value I suggest you take a look at the majority of graffiti that cities spend millions to abate. 99% of that type of graffiti is either gang or tagging related - and not some elaborate piece or bomb that you're referring too. I see nothing artistic in someone writing "snoopy" on a wall or curb or electrical box. All that is, is that one individual trying to promote his own fame and notoriety. People can continually try to muddy the waters by interjecting into the graffiti issue that these taggers have artistic value but the fact of the matter is that most graffiti cities paint out, is either gang related or some individual just scrawling his/her name up in some cursive manner. I refer to this as graffiti vandalism.

Often I hear people say that since corporate America can put advertisements up why can't people put graffiti up. I agree that there are way too many commercials out there. On the internet, on TV, billboards...everywhere. But I don't think the issue really is that there are so many advertisements. I think the issue is that most advertisements are terrible and they interrupt our fun. Think about it. When was the last time someone wasn't looking forward to commercials during the Super Bowl? This is one of the biggest events on television and continually draws huge ratings. So with all these people tuning in to watch the Super Bowl how many get mad when commercials come on? Very few because the commercials are good. The same logic can be applied to graffiti. 99% of it is just garbage, junk. It's one person just trying to promote their nickname and fame and as a result it's unsightly, hideous, and property owners don't want it. That being said, sometimes there are graffiti artists who get asked by businesses to put their work up on their walls. And to those property owners, good for them. I have no problem with that at all because 1) they gave permission and allowed for it to be up, and 2) they're a business, if the graffiti art was hideous their business would suffer so they have a vested interest in making sure that any graffiti art that is put up is in good taste and is attractive.

Finally - A Response

2007-11-10T23:21:00.001-08:00

In the past several months I have been terrible at writing new blogs. So for my new one I'd like to respond to some of the criticism that has been directed towards our company and what we do.

Some of the other bloggers out there accused us of trying to silence the voice of the hip hop culture and such. Now that's just ridiculous. Truth be told, I don't really care about the hip hop culture. What I mean is I don't like it but it also means I don't hate it. I'm totally indifferent to it. Here's what I don't like: Someone destroying other people's property. Now you can spin it all you want and say it's art, it's the voice of a generation or whatever. But the bottom line is your destroying other peoples property. That's all there is to it. I am amazed that this seems to be difficult for people to understand. Not long ago I was on NPR participating in a debate about graffiti. A professor who studies urban culture actually asked "Why is it ok to have a Nike billboard up and not be ok for someone to put up graffiti?" I wanted to blurt into the microphone "WTF?"

The moderator poses a scenario where he comes across two kids doing graffiti and asks us what we should do. My response: Call the police. To this I'm accused of recommending a neo-fascist response. A neo-fascist response....hmmmm. Fortunately I had a computer with me during the interview and was able to Google that. According to Wikipedia neo fascism is closely linked to the neo nazi party. So let me see if I understand this correctly - if I think it is best to call the police when you see kids doing graffiti, I have now aligned myself with the American Neo Nazi party? They're not going to send me lots of brochures in the mail like credit card companies are they? Can you imagine the headline? Instead of "Congratulations on your new home! You now qualify for a 10,000 gold card" it will say "You want to call the police to report a crime? Join us brother!"

What baffles the mind in all of this is that regardless of the debate of whether the graffiti is art or represents a certain culture it's still destroying someone else's property. And as much as I love the Huskers and am part of the Husker Nation culture, just because we get blown out by Kansas doesn't mean I can run around and start smashing kids X-Box's that have NCAA Football 2008.

Graffiti Removal Ordinance

2007-03-01T00:06:00.000-08:00

This article came from the Journal and Courier in Lafayette Indiana. It talks about an approach that is beginning to gain some momentum in various cities ranging from different sizes. The approach is what I like to refer to as "Once Tagged Twice Victimized" The premise seems to make sense; your property has been hit with graffiti, clean it up. This approach is similar to cities that adopt an ordinance about snow removal on your sidewalk. The idea being that the public shares in using your sidewalk for mobility and therefore it is your responsibility to remove the snow. If you don't remove the snow within a certain time frame then you can be fined and charged with the snow removal cost.

There are some major differences though. For starters, everyone at one time, in the community, experiences the effects from the snow storm. Also, most people who live in snow prone areas already have the needed equipment i.e. shovels or snow blowers. And, if you don’t have that or you're like me and too lazy to shovel snow, it’s ok because that’s what the neighbors kids are for. Slip ‘em a ten dollar bill and you’re doing your part to develop future football players. The other major difference is unless you live in Denver or near Lake Erie, you only get hit with 3 or 4 snow storms a year. With graffiti vandalism this could be a daily occurrence. This brings me to the downside of this ordinance.

Recently, it was reported that 69% of American’s own a home. After going through that lengthy process of buying a home I don’t think there is anything worse than going out front and seeing that someone spray painted your house while you were sleeping. It goes without being said that any homeowner does not want graffiti on their property. That’s no surprise. And naturally they will want to clean the graffiti off of their property. But what happens when the vandals come back again in the next week? The next day? How much does a homeowner need to budget for graffiti removal? As if having a mortgage isn’t enough of a strain (interest only loans anyone?) Imagine after three days in a row of being vandalized, you get a letter from the city indicating that if you do not clean the graffiti off of your property, you will be fined?

About once a month I get a call from either a city official or citizen with questions about adopting this strategy and my response is simple: “This is an excellent way to insure you won’t be re-elected.” The truth of the matter is an ordinance like this may have some success in a small town where graffiti does not happen very often, but in larger communities, where properties can be vandalized multiple times a week the policy simply does not work. Homeowners will get frustrated and eventually will demand action or move elsewhere.

While in the short term this may seem like a logical step to take, in reality it ends up costing a city far more in time, money, and resources. Remember, every new law you enact requires someone to enforce it. Because of the cost of having personnel enforce it, you may be better off just hiring someone to go and paint out the graffiti as a service. Most large metropolitan cities have these services and it is because it’s more cost effective to just remove the graffiti for the homeowner. Not to mention, you can now track the intelligence by documenting the graffiti before you remove it. And that leads me to my final point. The only way you can expect law enforcement to do something about graffiti is to have some sort of documentation of a crime. When cities employ their own graffiti paint out crews then the city can control and insure this documentation takes place. If, however, you force homeowners to remove the graffiti themselves than either A. you won't have any documentation of the vandalism for police to investigate or B. the home owner is going to be calling the police so that a report is taken. Imagine that happening in a city that has 1,000 incidents of graffiti a week. Just imagine the cost of having police officers going from house to house 1,000 times a week just to take graffiti vandalism reports. Yikes.