Texas Senate Bill SB1078

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

Caption

Relating to the conduct constituting the offense of graffiti, the consequences of engaging in that conduct, and the authority of certain governmental entities to take certain actions designed to eradicate graffiti.

Impact

The bill introduces additional responsibilities for local governments concerning graffiti removal. Specifically, it allows counties and municipalities to mandate property owners to remove graffiti on their property upon notification. Failure to comply can result in the local government removing the graffiti and charging the costs to the property owner. This aspect aims to promote cleaner communities but may raise concerns about property rights and the financial burden placed on homeowners.

Summary

SB1078 seeks to amend the conduct constituting the offense of graffiti and the associated consequences for such actions. The bill specifies that a person commits an offense when they intentionally deface, mark, or alter the tangible property of another without effective consent, using prohibited items such as spray paint, indelible markers, or chemicals. The bill categorizes offenses based on the monetary cost of the damage incurred, ranging from a Class B misdemeanor for damages under $500 to a first-degree felony for damages exceeding $200,000, thus significantly increasing the legal stakes for graffiti-related acts.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise regarding the bill's approach to punishments and community service obligations for offenders. Under SB1078, the court can mandate defendants to perform community service, including restoring the defaced property if they are unable to pay restitution. While this may be seen as a rehabilitative measure, critics could argue that such regulations do not adequately address the root causes of graffiti and may disproportionately affect low-income individuals who might lack the resources to comply with the financial aspects of restitution or removal.

Notable_points

Moreover, the inclusion of provisions allowing for liens against properties for unpaid graffiti removal expenses could be contentious as it enhances the authority of local governments while potentially complicating financial matters for property owners. This legislative approach reflects a broader strategy to combat graffiti but raises critical questions about the balance of power between local authorities and individual property rights.