Gardena and the Inflatable Felony

This is the first of a three part series by the Community Rejuvenation Project on the perpetual criminalization of aerosol culture, the abatement industry and the politics of incarceration. We begin with the problematic issue of “charge stacking,” which occurs when a prosecutor increases the severity of a charge or adds additional charges to an arrest to add leverage when making a plea agreement. This phenomenon was documented in Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow in relation to the drug war but it is also being applied into the attack on aerosol culture. The article below documents how the law in Gardena requires city workers to remove all “graffiti,” which elevates the costs of removal to more than $400 and pushes the charges from a misdemeanor to a felony. This tactic is used to pressure  defendants into plea bargaining to lesser charges. This is particularly heinous situation for low-income defendants who are assigned an overworked public defender, whose capacity to properly represent them is impinged by their massive caseload. Once in the system, particularly if convicted of a felony, the prisoner is permanently made into a second class citizen through their inability to vote and the significant additional challenges to getting gainful employment through being forced to identify as a felon in job applications.

Compounding the ethical issues in the application of these laws is the subtle provision that include the cost of the detective who investigates the case. In the case of Gardena, this amount is added to the total damage that the defendant is charged with, helping to push the amount passed $400 and making the charge a felony. So the detective has a vested interest in trapping suspects because his salary is connected to the convictions. Once captured, defendants are given inflated charges and pressured to plea bargain. Each conviction guarantees the detective’s salary. Its a good formula for an aggressive detective but not necessarily an honest one. 

Oakland has similar provision in its latest proposed “anti-graffiti” ordinance drafted by city attorney Barbara Parker and retiring councilwoman Nancy Nadel. The ordinance allows for the recovery of the city attorney’s costs from the defendant if convicted. So it is in the city attorney’s interest to stack charges, plea-bargain an agreement with the defendant and then get paid as part of the  defendant’s fine. 

And Oakland’s recent history shows that corruption has run rampant both in the police department and code enforcement divisions of the city. The Building Services Subcommittee has yet to release its list of improvements to the department after an Alameda County Grand Jury found unethical enforcement methods throughout its practices. Instead, city attorney Parker has proposed to continue the practice of holding property owners accountable for the writing on their walls, despite the fact Building Services was recently shown to be steering contracts to specific private abatement services, and conducting clean-ups prior to the mandated deadlines, then charging the owners. Parker’s latest initiative is just an attempt to get a cut of the action. There is still only one Code Enforcement officer for the entire city of Oakland, and OPD has listed graffiti as one of the 80 crimes that it won’t pursue so vandalism is unlikely to actually decrease. 

In the case of both Gardena and Oakland, as well as countless cities throughout the US, city governments are attempting to balance the budgets on the backs of poor people in the guise of law enforcement, through the use of exaggerated charges and disproportionate fines. Stay tuned to the www.CRPBayArea.org for the next two installments in this three part series.

In this week’s cover story, “Los Angeles’ War on Street Artists,” we reveal that the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, with the help of city and county prosecutors, figured out how to try all graffiti artists as gangsters in court.

In short: For the last five years or so, the sheriff has been treating all graffiti crews as “criminal street gangs” under the California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (STEP Act), thus turning every tag into a felony crime by way of “gang enhancement.”

Pretty intense, for a nonviolent crime. And it turns out that’s not the only trick up the sheriff’s sleeve:

While on a ride-along with the department, L.A. Weekly was introduced to another fascinating enforcement tactic in the war against graffiti. It’s currently being tested in the nowhere city of Gardena — a mixed-race, relatively low-income community in the South Bay.

Any act of vandalism that costs over $400 to repair is considered a felony; anything that costs less than $400 is a misdemeanor. But in Gardena, explained Sheriff’s Sgt. Christian Meadows, all tags are considered felonies because they all cost over $400 to clean up.

Say what?

We had been trolling through the sheriff’s countywide graffiti database, a photo archive called T.A.G.R.S., for a certain moniker. (The name “Realm” had been scrawled all over the skateboard and backpack of a kid that the sheriff had just arrested at Metro’s Blue Line station.) And when the sergeant came across a “Realm” tag in Gardena, his face lit up.

The tag would instantly earn its author a felony charge, said Meadows — because in Gardena, only city workers clean up graffiti.

A little background: Most cities and counties contract with graffiti-buffing companies like Graffiti Control Systems to clear the public space of unwanted tags. Jeff Woods, general manager of that company, tells L.A. Weekly that with a private contractor, your average piece of graffiti costs about $150 to buff — all labor and and time and materials considered.

But when you hire government workers, Woods explains, that number shoots up, because their unions have oftentimes secured them much higher salaries and benefit packages.

Which is all fine and dandy, depending on which side of the union debate you fall on. But should workers’ salaries be able to interfere with the justice system, and affect the severity of a criminal sentence?

Gardena Police Detective Luis Villanueva, who calls himself the “school resource and graffiti intelligence” specialist for the city’s police department, confirms that he has figured out a way to turn turn every single tag into a felony.

A sole city employee handles all the graffiti buffing in Gardena, says Villanueva. And in calculating the total cost of removing a tag, not only does the detective factor in said employee’s salary and benefits, but he adds his own salary in there, too, to compensate the taxpayers for the time Villanueva spent investigating the case.

After all is said and done, he says, most tags end up being priced between $500 to $1,000 — and even more than that, if the buff paint camouflages so terribly that the wall has to be replaced.

The District Attorney’s Office loves his new cost-analysis system, says Officer Villanueva, because it makes graffiti vandalism easier to prosecute. Even if the tagger settles with the D.A. by agreeing to pay full restitution and go on probation (which is common), that’s a great way of re-filling city coffers, and puts the vandal right where the cops want him: Now they can search his house at any time for graffiti tools.

One kid, claims Villanueva, felt so bad about the damage he had done to the city that he took out $37,000 in loans and handed the detective a check for the full amount.

It’s no coincidence that this insta-felony method of calculating graffiti cleanup costs is making its debut in Gardena. Bizarrely, the town of around 60,000 is run by Mayor Paul Tanaka — the same guy who serves as second-in-command, or “undersheriff,” at the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department.

Officer Villanueva confirms that, indeed, Gardena’s special method of punishing graffiti vandals was a brainchild of Undersheriff Tanaka.

The sheriff’s own “Special Problems Unit,” as we revealed in our cover story this week, “is widely recognized as one of the most ruthless and effective anti-graffiti task forces on Earth, and it has mastered the all-crew takedown, according to critics such as the ACLU and admirers such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police.”

And Undersheriff Tanaka, for his part, has a reputation of looking past brazen and brutal tactics on the part of his deputies. Critics see him as a “shadow leader” who does what he wants, when he wants as head Sheriff Lee Baca turns a blind eye.

Similarly, in L.A.’s war against graffiti — which intensifies as the spray-paint style becomes more and more popular in the mainstream — anything goes. As many law-enforcement personnel will tell you, taggers are addicts, and the only way to make them stop is to hit them over the head with such staggering charges that throwing up just isn’t worth it anymore.

L.A. graffiti historian Steve Grody, who heavily informed the cover story, feels there needs to be a more nuanced approach to punishing young taggers.

According to [Grody], almost every graffiti artist currently taking galleries by storm started out as a garden-variety tagger.
“People want the rain without the thunder and the lightning,” Grody says. “If you’re going to let a culture have some sense of self-expression, then that includes youth-movement things. That doesn’t mean all ‘bombing’ should be left alone. [But] when it’s treated as though it’s some sort of horrible, harmful felony, it’s out of balance.”

Comments
3 Responses to “Gardena and the Inflatable Felony”
  1. ingrid says:

    Eric, Will your articles be published before Tuesday’s meeting?? How can we stop this??

  2. Such a nice post thanks for sharing it.
    I really like your information.

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] The hysterical demonizing of aerosol writing has been a regular tool for politicians attempting to be tough on crime. Recently elected Barbara Parker proposed a massive increase in penalties as part of her successful campaign for Oakland city attorney. Aerosol writers are an easy target. They don’t vote in a block and may have already been completely removed from voting if they have already been convicted of  a felony through the inflation of removal costs (See part 1 of this series.)  […]



Leave A Comment