Graffiti Ordinance Is Marked by a Ban on Pens, Paints : Moorpark: The City Council tentatively approves the tough law to curb vandalism. But Councilman Montgomery lashes out at the proposal.

After an hour of sometimes acrimonious debate, the Moorpark City Council tentatively approved a tough anti-graffiti ordinance aimed at limiting vandals’ access to paints, markers and etching tools.

Councilman Scott Montgomery cast the lone dissenting vote at Wednesday’s meeting and led such a vehement tirade against the local law that Mayor Paul Lawrason at one point interrupted the councilman and told him he was out of line.

“You really should allow a colleague to speak their opinion,” Montgomery shot back at Lawrason. “Even if he disagrees with you.”

Montgomery said portions of the law that make it illegal for anyone 21 and under to be in possession of marking pens and other graffiti implements--regardless of their intent--would inevitably make lawbreakers out of some law-abiding citizens.

“This ordinance is laughable,” Montgomery said. “We want to conduct a preemptive strike against people who may commit graffiti. . . . Almost everybody will break this law.”

But other members of the council and Ventura County Sheriff’s Lt. Geoff Dean, who heads up Moorpark enforcement, said the ordinance was a valid attempt to fight the city’s graffiti problem.

“The intent of this isn’t to arrest someone who has a marker,” Dean said. “The intent is to prevent graffiti.”

Dean said deputies would have clear guidelines for enforcing the ordinance and would not apply the law just because someone happened to have a wide-tipped pen.

Dean acknowledged, however, that making a suspect’s intent to commit graffiti a justification for arrest--instead of simple possession of a marker or other graffiti implement--would make the new ordinance useless.

“It would be virtually impossible to prove a possession case if the word ‘intent’ were in there,” Dean said.

Montgomery also assailed a portion of the law that requires all merchants to make paints, etching tools and indelible markers with writing surfaces larger than one-eighth of an inch inaccessible to the public without employee assistance.

“This will be an economic disaster for all businesses,” said the councilman, who said it is not necessary to force merchants to restrict access to marking pens.

The council did not heed the suggestion.

“This is absolutely not an anti-business ordinance,” Lawrason said in an interview Thursday. “It is an ordinance focused on solving a serious problem. I feel we need to move ahead and put something in place. If we find that it’s onerous, we’ll make adjustments.”

Under terms of the tentative approval, the city will mail letters to all businesses affected by the new law to seek comments before the council considers the final form of the ordinance Oct. 20.

Lawrason said after the meeting that he felt he was justified in cutting short Montgomery’s comments.

“I’ve done that three or four times with him now and I feel that the presiding officer has a responsibility to the public and to the council and to the staff to try to maintain a reasonable decorum,” Lawrason said.

At one point during Wednesday’s council discussion, Montgomery declared himself and Councilmen Pat Hunter and Bernardo Perez in violation of the proposed law because of the pens they were using and urged residents to call police and report them if the law was approved.

Montgomery then passed his yellow highlighting pen down the dais to Hunter and asked him for a reading on whether the writing surface was large enough for him to be found in violation.

“I really can’t tell,” said Hunter, who then almost immediately made the successful motion to approve the ordinance.