Glendale OKs Anti-Graffiti Plan : Politics: City prosecutors are given more leeway to sue families of taggers for cleanup costs. Vandals identified by their monikers will also be targeted.

Calling it part of a “zero tolerance campaign” against graffiti, the Glendale City Council on Tuesday approved a plan making it easier for city prosecutors to sue the families of taggers to recover the cost of cleaning up defaced public property.

It has been nearly two years since City Atty. Scott Howard first asked for the council’s permission to take legal action against two local families to recover the $350 cost of painting over graffiti sprayed on a traffic pole by two boys.

That action was the first of a pilot program, but now legal action will be part of the city’s permanent arsenal against graffiti, allowing Howard to pursue similar matters without having to get the council’s approval in every case, city officials said.

“The program has achieved complete success and has resulted in either payment for the cost of abating graffiti, or community service where the parent and minor were involved in graffiti removal,” said Howard.

In addition, Howard said city prosecutors will expand their anti-graffiti efforts. Restitution will be sought not only from minors who are arrested by police for graffiti vandalism, but also from taggers who can be identified by the monikers they leave. Graffiti experts and witnesses will be used to track down vandals, Howard said.

Since the pilot program began in July, 1993, Howard said his office has handled five graffiti cases, none of which resulted in legal action. In every case, the family of the vandal either agreed to pay the cost of cleaning up the graffiti or took part in a community service program to remove graffiti.

In addition, 13 cases were rejected by the city attorney’s office for lack of evidence or other factors, he said.

City officials said recovering the money is not as important as the lesson they are trying to teach taggers and their parents.

“It is not enough for parents to say, ‘I don’t know where my children are,’ ” said City Councilman Larry Zarian, who called the program “a good law.”

“When there is defacing of public and private property, somebody is going to have to be responsible,” Zarian said.

The anti-graffiti policy must be renewed by the City Council annually and requires that the city attorney provide annual updates on the number of recovery actions pursued, and the outcome.