Bill Would Allow Municipalities To Require Property Owners To Remove Graffiti

State Rep. Joe Pickett (D-El Paso) has filed legislation which would give Texas cities and counties the authority to require property owners to remove graffiti from their property. If property owners don’t remove graffiti, the bill gives the city or county the authority to do it for them and charge the property owners for removal.

The bill, HB 489 has provisions requiring that the county or city notify the property owner by one of several various means. The owner then has seven days to remove the graffiti. After seven days, the city or county may remove the graffiti or pay for the removal of the graffiti and then charge the owner for the removal.

This bill may have some problems because it lacks some necessary protections for property owners. For one thing, seven days is a fairly short time frame to remove graffiti–especially if it required a small business to expend a very high sum to have it removed.

In addition, there is no provision allowing business owners to request an extension on the seven-day time limit. That is a pretty significant problem for owners of historical buildings. If graffiti is put on a certain historical building, the graffiti abatement procedures are far different and more time consuming than they may be on newer buildings. And, if graffiti happens to be put on a building that is a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark, the property owner actually has to notify the Texas Historical Commission before repainting or making structural changes to the graffiti, given that the removal of the graffiti could actually damage the structure:

A person may not damage the historical or architectural integrity of a structure the commission has designated as a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark without notifying the commission at least 60 days before the date on which the action causing the damage is to begin. After receiving the notice, the commission may waive the waiting period or, if the commission determines that a longer period will enhance the chance for preservation, it may require an additional waiting period of not longer than 30 days.

Given that removal of grafitti from an RTHL designated building can be a time consuming and costly process requiring expert craftsmen, seven days isn’t nearly enough time for the property owner to do anything. In this case, the Legislature is going to have to weigh whether or not it is more important to remove the blight of graffiti from Texas cities or protect historic structures.

In addition, it makes no provision for due process for the employer if, for some reason, they wanted to dispute the city’s determination. For example, in some major cities, business or building owners may commission “graffiti artists” to paint murals on the side of their buildings. City police or county sheriff’s deputies may not properly distinguish between the two.

We’d expect some serious amending to this bill either in committe or on the floor to rectify some of these problems.