For those who don't already know, there is a new policy of the NYC Graffiti-Free Program that has been in effect since 2010.  This new policy has resulted in a LOT of old graffiti being painted over causing the history of our city to slowly disappear.  The new policy, taken directly from the NYCEDC web site states the following:
 
"Anyone can report graffiti on any property in New York City. Simply call 3-1-1 and The City will mail a Notice of Intent to Remove Graffiti to the property's address as well as the owner's address if different from the property in question. Once the notice is delivered, the property owner/representative will have 35 days to contact The City to decline graffiti removal services or request an extension. If the property owner/representative takes no action within 35 days, we will remove the graffiti free of charge..."
 
At the same time, New York City Graffiti Law states:

“No person shall write, paint or draw any inscription, figure or mark of any type on any public or private building or other structure or any other real or personal property owned, operated or maintained by a public benefit corporation, the city of New York or any agency or instrumentality thereof or by any person, firm, or corporation, or any personal property maintained on a city street or other city-owned property pursuant to a franchise, concession or revocable consent granted by the city, unless the express permission of the owner or operator of the property has been obtained.”
 
It appears that the city no longer follows their own graffiti law with this new policy.  "If you want to keep the graffiti on your property and do not want it cleaned, you must also call 311 within 35 days."  Is that considered "express permission" to "paint a mark of any type" on your property?  It sounds more like implied logic than express permission, but what do we know?  Under the old policy, if you received the notice, you still had to give the city permission to clean your property.  If you did not reply with "express permission", the city had no right to clean the graffiti from your property.  This old process was reasonable and made total sense (even as a supporter of graffiti art.) Let's look at some of the flaws of this new policy:

• When you get sent the "Notice of Intent to Remove Graffiti" notice, this letter is NOT sent by certified receipt.  You could have been on summer vacation and not have received the letter until you got home.  Snail mail also gets lost all of the time.  The same goes for your reply letter.
• This new policy is similar to asking Starbucks by mail if you can go ahead and change their logo because you think it looks ugly.  When they don't respond, you just assume that it's okay.  Then, you go out and start altering all their stores' logos so that it looks "better" for everyone's sake.   Just because you notified them, it doesn't make it okay or legal.
• To take it a step further, couldn't we just use the same logic to make "Notices of Upcoming Graffiti?" We could send these notices out (with certified-receipt as proof) to different property owners all over the city.  These notices will let them know that we will be coming to paint our "art" on their property and they have 35 days to let us know if they DON'T want our FREE service.  Something tells us that we wouldn't get many responses back so that would mean "express permission" these days right?

"It is the current policy of Graffiti-Free NYC not to remove murals. If we receive a request for removal of a mural, our current policy is to contact the property owner for information regarding the mural and refer the matter to The Mayor's Office's Community Affairs Unit for further investigation."

• Who is the city to determine what is considered a "mural"?  Below, are photos of legal/commissioned "murals" by a gallery but it sure looks a lot like what most people consider "graffiti" in the streets.

A piece that will be featured in an upcoming graffiti exhibit at LA's Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA)


Under the new policy, what stops the city from going ahead and painting over LEGAL murals like the ones above?
Photos by Sabeth718

This is all just food for thought.  It's just the age old issue of the government breaking the law to enforce the law.  In the end, NYC is still better off than other cities that don't require any property owner permission at all to paint over what the city deems "graffiti."

If you would like to make a complaint regarding this new policy, please contact the NYC EDC at: GraffitiFreeNYC@nycedc.com (in a professional manner.)
 
Here are some examples of how "graffiti removal" can go terribly wrong:

Content taken from REVOK's blog:



"These guys thought it would be a good idea to remove the gate off the hinges and enter into this fenced in property… Then start painting over the legal mural my friends and I painted. Once some folks from the neighborhood realized what was happening they called the police and the owner of the building(Wonder Woman) jammed down there and got in their ass… Lynda is super bummed, the entire neighborhood dug our wall… were not too stoked either."

Read more...

Content taken from ASKEW's blog:



"Last Monday Component from Cut Collective turned up at my studio to tell me about the contractors painting out a mural site I have painted and maintained since 2001. I left my studio immediately and drove up to the wall to speak with the contractors, just to grasp how this had come to be. They were nice polite guys, both a little shocked that they were ordered to remove this mural and had actually thought it must be a mistake. I was told that it was due to a complaint from the owner as apparently the wall was illegally done. They said Tony Capton had made the call and it had maybe come from higher up. I was shocked to hear this, I new it was likely a mistake as although I wasn’t certain at the time whether the tenant I got permission from was the landlord or not – I was curious to investigate and find out conclusively..."

Read more...