WILMINGTON — The City of Wilmington enforces code regulations to keep the downtown – and the rest of the city – up to a certain aesthetic standard. But that enforcement means punishing the victims of the crime of graffiti. That’s the case even when the victims have paid an additional tax to protect them from such vandalism.
According to the city’s chief code enforcement officer, Williane Carr, property owners are given 15 days from the day the violation is recorded to clean the graffiti – after that, businesses are fined $100 a day.
For downtown business owners, graffiti should, in theory, be less of an issue since part of the additional tax they pay – called the municipal service tax – goes towards funding Wilmington Downtown Inc. (WDI). The non-profit organization offers a number of downtown services in the Municipal Service District (MSD), including graffiti removal by employees known as the Ambassadors.
But, apparently, the system doesn’t always work.
“Victim treated like a perpetrator”
According to city emails, one downtown business owner was given just half the time to respond, for graffiti that wasn’t actually on his property, finding himself – in his words – a “victim treated like a perpetrator.”
On August 8, Thomas Harris, owner of Front Street Brewery in downtown Wilmington, emailed the city after he was cited for graffiti in Cabic Alley bordering his property. After several back-and-forth emails, Harris stated his case to Amy Beatty, the city’s community services director who oversees code enforcement.
In his email, Harris addressed several issues:
- Harris wrote the language in the city’s violation notice made him out to “be the perpetrator and not the victim.”
- The city’s violation notice was dated August 1, postmarked August 6, and received by Harris on August 8, cutting his available response time in half, something Harris called “unacceptable.”
- Since Harris’s business is in the Municipal Services District, he pays extra tax for graffiti removal services provided by the Ambassadors. Harris pointed out that he was a member of the 14-member MSD Advisory Committee that helped create the ambassadors and that “one of the services we promised (downtown business) owners was graffiti removal.”
- Harris also pointed out that the city’s mistakenly sending him a notice for a violation on a neighbor’s property added “insult to injury.”
Ambassadors vs. enforcement
Although Harris said he felt WDI and the Ambassadors do “a nice job downtown,” he said was not contacted by either after the violation; he only received a notice in the mail from the city.
According to Ed Wolverton, president and CEO of WDI, the Ambassadors are often able to remove graffiti within 24 hours, provided they can get permission from the property owner. However, there are some challenges, Wolverton said, including the following:
- The ambassadors use an eco-friendly cleaner which doesn’t work on all paint.
- Finding contact information for some property owners is “often very difficult,” especially when LLCs are involved.
- Ambassadors cannot get to some areas, including construction areas, elevated locations, and narrow areas where trucks can’t gain access, including alleys.
- Most of the Ambassador’s graffiti patrol happens in the evening hours. Small pieces of graffiti in dimly lit areas may not be pro-actively identified.
In cases where the ambassadors cannot get permission to or get access to clean graffiti, they notify the code enforcement office.
According to Chief Carr, the code enforcement office also notifies WDI when graffiti is identified, either from a complaint or by a code enforcement officer. But the city doesn’t wait to hear back from WDI – it sends out a violation notice.
Playing ‘Gotcha?’
After being contacted about the incident, Harris said he understood the “human error of attributing graffiti on someone else’s property to my property,” but reiterated that he was offended “by the fact that the city treats the victims of graffiti – who have had their property vandalized – as if the property owner has committed some sort crime or infraction that warrants a $100 per day fine.”
Harris said “the city’s attitude of playing ‘gotcha’” was “egregious,” and asked why the city didn’t turn the issue over to law enforcement, instead of fining a tax-payer. Harris also pointed out that the “public nuisance” graffiti was not visible by pedestrians on Front Street, as it was down an alley used only for deliveries.
“Instead of doing what common sense would dictate doing, which is for the City to simply contact the MSD tax-funded Ambassadors to remove the graffiti … the City is instead threatening businesses with $100 a day fines and then to add ‘insult to injury’ the City is wasting half of the two-week time period the City gives businesses to remove graffiti with their ‘in your face’ certified mail notification process, ” Harris said.
Harris said he faulted the city’s management, not the employees carrying out its policies.
“I do not fault Mrs. Carr and the people in the code enforcement office. They are only operating within the culture perpetuated by the people at the very top of City Government, a culture of not putting public service first and allowing policies to evolve that are contrary to both the concept and spirit of public service and working for the people who pay the taxes that pay their salaries and contrary to common sense,” Harris added.
City Response
According to city email records, Beatty wrote Harris back in the second week of August, saying she would meet with WDI and the code enforcement office, “in an effort to get to these cases to the ambassadors before a code case is opened.”
Beatty also said she would also present the language in the violation notices to the City Attorney’s office for review.
So far, Harris said he’s heard nothing back about his request that the city take a more proactive, less hostile approach – nor has he heard anything from the city in regards to mistakenly identifying his neighbor’s graffiti violation as his own.
As to the late notice, Carr said to her knowledge “notices and citations are mailed the same day they are written, unless it’s a Friday or a holiday and the certified mail only may go out the next day.”
Harris’s violation letter, dated August 1 – a Wednesday – was postmarked certified mail on August 6 – a Monday – and received on two days later. When asked it was possible that property owners could receive a notice a week later, Carr again said, “not to my knowledge.”
According to Carr, the city does not track how much money it takes in from graffiti violation fines, but said that by state statute the money goes to the school board and – thus – cannot be directed towards graffiti clean-up efforts or additional efforts to apprehend those responsible for vandalizing property.
Asked if the city had considered or would consider changing its policy on handling graffiti in the downtown area, Carr reiterated that there was a “process in place” with the code enforcement office and WDI.
Wolverton said, “While I had discussions with City staff about the graffiti notification and removal process a couple of weeks ago, I am unable to say if the City is making any changes to their process or not. ”
Send comments and tips to Benjamin Schachtman at ben@localvoicemedia.com, @pcdben on Twitter, and (910) 538-2001.
