Tagbuster busted
KGW's reporting that the City of Portland is asking the fellow we blogged about here the other day to take down his website -- the one sassing the taggers whose work the guy's been covering up.
I suspected that's what the city would say.
They're also asking him to stop painting over graffiti. On that issue, I'm with "Nascar Dad." If the property owner won't take down the tags within the legal time limit (I believe it's 72 hours), then somebody else should. If the owner doesn't like it, he or she can paint over the paint-over, the same way he or she should have painted over the tags. No harm, no foul.
Anyway, the city's asking for the tagbuster's identity. No thanks, but I'm sure he'll get the message here if he has not already done so.
It will be interesting to see his response.
| Posted at 3:31 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (16)
I HATE grafitti.
I wish taggers the worst possible punishment.
The city should give this guy a budget and let him work for their grafitti abatement program...
Just a note, however. It *is* valuable to get pictures of the tags BEFORE they are painted over and to send those pictures to the Grafitti abatement office. They keep a database that they can use to prosecute taggers.
It is a lot harder to get off if the city can show that you have a long history of tags... It also can make fines larger and sentences bigger.
Posted by VR | October 11, 2006 4:08 PM
I suggested Monday that the best move would be to send the "before" photos to the city, as I do with the most egregious "finds" in my neck of the woods. I'm sure "Nascar Dad" would be glad to oblige.
As for not acting out the rage on the internet, that one I think he'll need to work on.
Posted by Jack Bog | October 11, 2006 4:11 PM
I always misspell Graffiti, and I forgot to post the link to the website:
http://www.portlandonline.com/oni/index.cfm?c=dceca
Posted by VR | October 11, 2006 4:11 PM
Agreed!
If the property owner does not remove the graffiti in 3 days, then it's free game for anyone who wants to restore a sense of "pride and dignity" to the... uh... neighborhood.
Then, they can try restoring it at The White House, but that's another thread and a very large can of pig-remover.
I mean paint remover.
Sorry.
Posted by Daphne | October 11, 2006 5:17 PM
If a dog pisses on your tree or sh*ts in your yard it's "Marking" If a punk ass kid sprays your house its "Tagging" its the same behaviour.We havent gotten far evolutionarywise. Listen to Pink Floyd "ANIMALS" but replace the evil politicians with the misguided youth. In the end you still have sh*t in your yard and no-one to complain to
Posted by ace | October 11, 2006 6:45 PM
If I were NASCAR DAD, I would continue doing what he's doing. If he needs any help, I am available nights and weekends.
I can imagine a rational argument for not using the web to taunt the taggers, but I can see NO REASON not to encourage citizens to cover it up.
I can't imagine the city would dare prosecute a good samaritan who cares enough to take up the slack from a do nothing municipal government. If anything, they should be buying his paint for him.
Posted by Mister Tee | October 11, 2006 7:07 PM
Vigilantism is vigilantism. Be careful Nascar Dad, nobody elected you.
Posted by Chris | October 11, 2006 9:29 PM
Paint-over party. If we get enough of us Nascar Dads to help who know what can be painted over. Just a note, I guess it wasn't graffiti when that guy was painting all those roses on the water tower year after year. I guess that was art.
Posted by DB Cooper | October 11, 2006 9:32 PM
nobdy elected you chris and i would bet you are an unnarmed idiot living in a world of illusion where everything is going to be OK
Posted by ace | October 11, 2006 9:37 PM
Guys, let's grow up. Cleaning up vandalism is not "vigilantism," and let's lay off the "idiot" talk unless we're talking about the President.
Posted by Jack Bog | October 11, 2006 9:42 PM
Chris - Painting over tagging is "Vigilantism"?? Are you kidding me? Is picking up litter vigilantism too, because that darn SOLV organization has been pissing me off for years...
Posted by Larry | October 12, 2006 8:10 AM
Picking up litter is fine as long as you're not violating someone's private property rights to do so.
Posted by Hinckley | October 12, 2006 8:24 AM
The blog has been taken down.
Posted by raging red | October 12, 2006 8:33 AM
I can understand the legal ramifications of painting over someone's private property, but a lot of his cover-ups are on publicly owned premises and infrastructure. How can anyone have a problem with that?
Posted by Chris McMullen | October 12, 2006 9:54 AM
I assume by "publicly owned" you mean government taxpayer-supported property.
The government bureaucracy will still spend our money no matter what, because they'll find a way to declare that the vigilante's paint job didn't use the correct color or brand or wasn't done by a union-labor shop which provides health care benefits to its workers.
So, they'll contract out for someone to go paint the thing again, at our (taxpayers) expense. This vigilante saves us taxpayers absolutely no money, and probably is making things worse by egging the vandals on.
Posted by Hinckley | October 12, 2006 10:49 AM
The "asinine" label was just assigned to this story at FARK.COM....
It's nice to know the city's unflinching devotion to keeping it wierd is making national headlines.
I was surprised the crispy copper thief didn't make it on to Fark. I have nominated him for a posthumous Darwin Award.
Posted by Mister Tee | October 12, 2006 11:53 PM