Highland Park council reviews draft graffiti ordinance, focuses debate on enforcement and removal windows

Highland Park councilmembers discussed a draft graffiti ordinance at a June 2 workshop, examining options to add a specific graffiti offense to the city code and to increase enforcement tools and penalties.

Council President Thomas opened the session by framing the workshop as the start of a broader ordinance-review effort: "I am hopeful that today will be the first of a number of meetings on the modification of ordinances," he said, urging the body to use the next 18 months to pursue changes. Director Clyburn introduced the graffiti draft and said it was intended to give the city "some teeth" to address tagging of vacant buildings.

The draft materials the city circulated were pulled from the Hamtramck code as models. Attorney Bosnick summarized key language and penalties drawn from Hamtramck, saying, "And that is prosecuted as a as a misdemeanor under the Hamtramck code, which should be punishable by a fine of up to $500 and a jail term not to exceed 90 days." The Hamtramck model appears in two sections: one in the nuisances chapter (listed in the draft as 130.027) and one in the offenses-against-property chapter (132.03), both of which the building and legal staff flagged for council discussion.

Council discussion centered on three enforcement issues: identifying and apprehending taggers, the time allowed for property owners to remove graffiti, and how to treat murals and other permitted artwork. Several councilmembers and staff said tagging often occurs at night and that patrol patterns and identification tools matter to enforcement. Suggestions included targeted patrols, use of city-owned cameras on frequently targeted blocks (such as Hamilton and parts of Woodward), and lighting strategies to deter nocturnal tagging.

Members debated the proposed removal timeline in the model ordinance. Staff noted the Hamtramck-derived draft used a seven-day removal deadline tied to notice provisions; some councilmembers pressed for more time for property owners to obtain funds and perform removals, arguing that city-owned properties often take longer to remediate as well. Others warned that longer deadlines could blunt the ordinance's incentive for owners to act. The draft also includes an administrative-extension mechanism; councilmembers discussed whether to keep or remove that extension language as they refine the draft.

Councilmembers also asked staff to explicitly exclude murals from the graffiti definition, noting the city has sought and expects more murals. The draft language from Hamtramck defines graffiti broadly but also explicitly exempts chalk and postings; councilmembers and legal staff recommended mirroring that exemption and adding a mural exclusion to avoid unintentionally criminalizing sanctioned public art.

No formal vote occurred. Instead, staff and the legal department were asked to continue refining the draft and to coordinate a follow-up meeting with public safety to discuss patrols, camera placement and practical enforcement options. Councilmembers agreed to continue the ordinance discussion in a future workshop and return revised language for further review and public input.

Ending: The council did not take final action on the graffiti draft. Staff will return a revised ordinance for additional council consideration and a planned follow-up workshop addressing enforcement logistics with public safety.