Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Graffiti Restitution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves civil penalties and community restitution option for prolific graffiti taggers
Summary
The Seattle City Council on July 15 passed council bill 120995 creating a civil action and restitution mechanism for illegal graffiti; the legislation includes provisions encouraging community restitution and clarifies private property owners' rights to seek abatement costs.
The Seattle City Council voted 7-1 on July 15 to approve council bill 120995, a measure creating a civil cause of action against prolific graffiti taggers and requiring restitution for abatement costs, council President Sarah Nelson announced after the roll call.
Council members framed the bill as a response to repeated illegal tagging that burdens small businesses, churches and homeowners. The legislation was amended at the meeting to (A) allow courts to order community restitution without a prior hardship motion by an offender, (B) clarify that private property owners may seek restitution for abatement costs separately from city actions, (C) expand community restitution options, and (D) adopt a limited retroactive evidentiary provision.
"This is about taggers who damage public and private property," Public Safety Committee Chair Council member Kettle said during the committee report, distinguishing illegal tagging from murals or commissioned public art. Committee members and sponsors emphasized that the purpose is behavioral change and abatement, not criminalizing art.
Council member Rink offered amendments to broaden the judiciary's ability to order community restitution; those amendments passed. Council member Hollingsworth successfully added language promoting community restitution and requiring offenders, when appropriate, to assist in cleanup efforts.
During public comment several speakers urged the council both to distinguish murals from tagging and to consider the cost burden on small businesses and houses of worship. Council member Hollingsworth described instances where volunteer congregants regularly remove tags from their building and said the bill aims to place restorative responsibility on offenders.
Opponents argued the city already has criminal tools to address graffiti and questioned whether the civil action would recover more in restitution than it would cost to pursue. Council member Rink said staff could not estimate potential revenue from restitution and expressed concern about using limited city attorney and enforcement resources.
The clerk recorded the final roll call as: Council member Kettle ' Aye; Council member Rink ' No; Council member Rivera ' Aye; Council member Saka ' Aye; Council member Solomon ' Aye; Council member Strauss ' Aye; Council member Hollingsworth ' Aye; Council President Nelson ' Aye.
Ending: The ordinance passed as amended; sponsors said they will monitor implementation and work with abatement teams and community organizations to prioritize restorative approaches and to minimize costs to small property owners.
