Graffiti Tally Finds 6,900 Walls in L.A. Are Marred : Urban blight: Officials say the count is probably far below the actual number. It is believed, however, to be a positive step toward solving the problem.

Los Angeles’ first citywide survey of graffiti damage found that 2,300 single family homes, 2,200 apartments and 2,400 commercial buildings had been marred, officials said Monday.

The highest concentrations appear to be in South-Central and East Los Angeles, and in Pacoima in the San Fernando Valley, according to a two-month survey by meter readers working for the Department of Water and Power. Each of those communities had at least 300 graffiti occurrences per ZIP code area.

Westside communities including Beverly Hills, Woodland Hills and Santa Monica, however, were virtually free of spray-painted gang slogans and tagger markings, which seem to be proliferating in less affluent neighborhoods around the city.

But officials say the figures compiled during a 60-day billing period last summer were probably far below the actual number of defaced properties in a metropolis encompassing an estimated 1 million structures.

For one thing, the methodology was hardly comprehensive or scientific--DWP employees only inspected the sides of buildings facing the meters they were also checking at the time.

“People are going to laugh at these figures, but they are all we’ve got,” said Alisa Katz, an aide to Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky. “This is the only graffiti survey ever conducted of every property in the city.”

The cost-free survey was requested by City Councilman Hal Bernson to help council members in considering proposed amendments to an existing ordinance that makes property owners responsible for keeping their homes and businesses free of graffiti.

Under the proposed amendments, which have been under consideration for more than a year, low-income families in single-family dwellings, for example, would be exempt from having to pay for prompt removal of graffiti from their premises, said Nanci Oliva, an aide to Councilman Bernson.

The council has repeatedly postponed taking action on the amendments largely because opponents argue it would be unfair to force property owners to pay for someone else’s crime, Oliva said.

“The survey is a wonderful step in the right direction,” she said. “The data will help the City Council determine where the problems are and how much it will cost to take care of them.”

Meanwhile, the Department of Public Works, which coordinates the city’s graffiti removal programs, has been directed to analyze the DWP’s findings and to submit its own information about graffiti found on traffic lights, bus benches, bridges and street signs.

The DWP’s 150 field employees confined their graffiti inspections to walls near the 650,000 water meters and 1.3 million electric power meters they checked between May 13 and July 10, said spokeswoman Mindy Berman.

“They went about their regular course of business, and if they saw graffiti they recorded it,” Berman said. “They did not look for graffiti in places they wouldn’t normally be.”

For that very reason, Delphia Jones, director of the city’s primary graffiti-removal program, Operation Clean Sweep, was highly skeptical about the results.

“We have some questions about whether the survey really does represent all the graffiti out there,” Jones said. “We believe it gives us a snapshot of the problem, but it is not totally accurate.”

Still, Jones said, the survey may help the city better organize anti-graffiti campaigns, which are currently initiated by complaints coming into Operation Clean Sweep’s telephone hot-line service.

The agency spends about $1 million a year contracting with more than a dozen community-based graffiti-buster organizations.

“We get from 100 to 300 complaints a week in our office,” Jones said. “Right now, graffiti removal is spotty because it favors those who use the hot line most often.”