Highland Park councilors debate tougher graffiti rules, city-owned blue lights and enforcement costs

At a Highland Park City Council workshop, council members and staff spent more than 30 minutes discussing a proposed graffiti ordinance and enforcement options for tagged and vacant properties, including whether the city can require private owners to install so-called "blue lights" on buildings.

The council president opened the discussion by describing three items on the agenda and asking whether members wanted to focus on the graffiti ordinance or on other priorities. The council decided to devote time now to the residential rental ordinance and to continue work on a graffiti proposal at a later meeting, but discussed possible language and enforcement approaches for graffiti at length.

Council members and staff said the city now treats graffiti under the property-maintenance code but wants a separate ordinance “with more teeth” aimed at owners of vacant or nonoperating buildings. A staff member noted draft language borrowed from Wayne County and pointed to a civil-infraction approach that Wayne County uses: "$100 for a first offense and $200 for a second offense within 1 year," an alternate option of assigning an offender to a work crew at a rate of $10 per hour, and involvement of the prosecuting attorney to seek civil judgments against juveniles for removal and restoration costs.

Council members debated whether the city can legally require private owners to install surveillance or deterrent lighting. A staff speaker cautioned that using mandatory language such as "must" could raise legal issues for requiring private property owners to accept surveillance devices, and recommended consulting the law department before inserting any requirement that private owners "must apply for a blue light."

Members discussed alternatives if the city cannot require lights: the city could install blue lights on city-owned vacant buildings and use the existing property-maintenance or vacant-property-registration processes to force cleanup or charge owners for removal. One council member proposed using limited council discretionary funds—an example figure raised during discussion was $5,000 per district—to help board or secure some city-owned properties while the council develops a fuller program.

Council members also pressed staff about enforcement capacity. Building and code staff said enforcement staffing is limited (described in the meeting as roughly one inspector on duty and, informally, "1.5" full-time equivalents), and members said most tagging happens at night or by groups able to scale murals quickly.

The council did not adopt an ordinance at the meeting. Staff were asked to return with legal review and options: (1) whether the city may require blue or surveillance lights on private property, (2) language for a standalone graffiti ordinance with fines and abatement remedies drawn from partner jurisdictions, (3) possible changes to the vacant-property registration and certificate-of-compliance rules to allow suspension or revocation for repeat noncompliance, and (4) an estimate of costs and staffing needed for proactive removal and enforcement.

Council members set continued work on the graffiti proposal alongside other ordinance priorities and directed staff to provide draft language and legal vetting before the next workshop.