Graffiti Bill Would Make Spray Cans Less Portable

It seems simple enough. Take the portability out of aerosol spray-paint cans by tethering them to a permanent power source--say, an electrical outlet--and the graffiti epidemic in California is history.

No more ugly scrawls on freeway bridges or esoteric gang threats on school buildings and private property, say proponents. Forget police searches for elusive taggers. Save the taxpayer money spent on temporary cleanup efforts.

But, argues the paint industry, there is a downside: Spray-paint sales may plummet and result in lost jobs in the paint industry. Hobbyists and other law-abiding consumers would be penalized unfairly and their safety possibly endangered. And vandals merely would switch to other potentially more destructive mediums, such as etching tools.

As the Legislature prepares to open its latest attack on graffiti, everybody--as usual--is opposed to spray-paint vandalism. But how to cure it is another matter.

At issue this year is a bill by state Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco) that would ban all spray-paint cans in California unless they are tethered to a fixed power source, such as air, gas or electricity. The bill (SB 1696) will be up before the Senate Criminal Procedures Committee on Tuesday.

“We just want some way to restrict the portability of these aerosol containers,” said Gregory D. Totten, executive director of the California District Attorneys Assn., sponsor of the bill.

The legislation specifies no particular power source, but most talked about is the ordinary 110-volt electrical outlet. At least two inventors say they have developed and are ready to produce an electrified cup-like device that would activate the spray-paint mechanism. But they say they need a law before anyone would buy the devices.

The inventors estimate that the gadget would sell for $8 to $12 and could be reused hundreds of times. Adjustments to the spray mechanism would add about 5 cents to the cost per can, they estimate.

If the bill becomes law, supporters say, a new anti-graffiti standard will be created for the rest of the nation. They estimate the cost nationally for graffiti cleanup at $7 billion a year, including $500 million in California and close to $100 million in Los Angeles County. A California Highway Patrol study estimated graffiti cleanup costs of $5 billion nationwide last year.

But first, the measure must survive a big-stakes lobbying fight led by the district attorneys on one side and the national paint industry on the other.

Kopp and the district attorneys, who prosecute graffiti vandals, charge that among the reasons the industry wants the bill killed is that it would erode the income the companies receive from graffiti-removal products.

“The paint industry makes money both ways--putting it on and taking it off,” Kopp said. “They have an immense monetary interest. The industry is the source of much of the removal substances and profits from removal.”

But an industry executive, Heidi McAuliffe of the National Paint and Coatings Assn. in Washington, denied that paint manufacturers, suppliers and distributors oppose the bill to protect profits.

“I challenge [Kopp and others] to come up with figures to support that allegation. The revenue generated by these products for the paint industry is minuscule,” said McAuliffe, who also represents the California Paint Council.

Totten of the district attorneys association says the bill is the industry’s main target for defeat this year because it could set a precedent for the rest of the nation.

Asked about Totten’s statement, McAuliffe avoided a direct response, but said, “We don’t want to see California go down a road that is not going to fight graffiti and is going to harm the industry in the state.”

McAuliffe said taggers probably would turn to alternatives, including etching devices, crayons, marking pens and other forms of paint. “You just cannot remove a graffiti tool from vandals. They’ll just get something else,” she said.

In addition to the National Paint and Coatings Assn., other opponents include Sherwin Williams Co., major California retailers and the California Chamber of Commerce. The association has hired Sacramento lobbyist George Steffes, who declined to comment on the bill.

Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren initially joined opponents of the bill but last week began taking a second look at his position, a spokesman said. Gov. Pete Wilson has not taken a position, aides said.

Supporters of the bill include the Los Angeles City Council, school principals, transit agencies, police chiefs, and major building and apartment complex owners.

Ensol Environmental Solutions of Los Angeles, a developer of one electrified gadget, hired the public relations firm of Pacific/West Communications Group to run interference for the bill.

“Without legislation, there is no market for this product,” said Ensol executive Steve Beirend. He said he began developing his electric device when he learned that Chicago had banned aerosol spray-paint cans.

“That’s a bad thing to do,” he said. “To ban an entire product would kill an industry.”

But the bill has drawn criticism as offering a special advantage to a single company, Ensol. To overcome the objection, Kopp amended it so the bill would not take effect until at least two competing manufacturers were prepared to produce and distribute tethered spray cans, or until mid-1999.

Beirend and a potential competitor, inventor Albert Rene of Bellmore, N.Y., said in separate interviews that a tethered can still would enable consumers to exercise the flexibility needed to perform most tasks.

But a shackled can as an instrument for taggers would be impossible, they said. “This thing will allow the homeowner to have the spray can, but not the graffiti [vandal]. Graffiti is dead,” Rene said.

The electrified cans could not be operated by batteries, a car cigarette lighter, portable generator or any other power source that would restore their mobility, both inventors said.

However, industry spokeswoman McAuliffe warned against enacting legislation before a product had been safety-tested and approved for the market. “We have a lot of concerns about moving electrical current through a can containing solvents. One spark and you’ve got a fireball,” she said.

McAuliffe said state government should focus harder on local efforts to fight graffiti, a notion rejected by Totten of the district attorneys organization.

“We’ve tried a whole host of cleanup remedies. Those things are good, but you need only to take a drive on the Los Angeles freeways to see the impact of graffiti. We need a new approach,” Totten said.