One of the most visible recent trends around the country is the growing incidence of spray-paint vandalism by young people.
Unfortunately, the problem seems to be about as prevalent in the Salt Lake Valley as in other metropolitan areas. Some of the most common targets have been freeway underpasses and sound walls. The graffiti also turns up at schools and on other public property. Often, such vandalism is gang-related.Not only does the graffiti create an eyesore, it is expensive to remove - with taxpayers frequently getting stuck with the tab.
No one should be surprised, therefore, that communities across the nation are taking steps to crack down on the problem.
A few days ago the Aurora, Ill., City Council banned the sale of spray paint to anyone under age 18. Under the measure, minors caught with spray paint would face a $500 fine and mandatory community service. Teens caught driving and painting could lose their cars until their parents post a $250 bond. Retailers who sell the paint to minors could be fined up to $500.
Aurora's frustration with spray-paint vandalism, as reflected by the tough new ordinance, is understandable. But the town's approach to solving the problem leaves much to be desired.
First, the action penalizes the vast majority of young people who use spray paint for legitimate purposes. It appears to presuppose that any teen with a can of spray paint intends to commit a crime.
Second, the ordinance is an unnecessary restraint of trade. What's to keep zealous elected officials from restricting sales of dyes, food colorings or house paints if young people turn to these as alternatives to spray paint? If store owners want to voluntarily restrict sales of spray paints - and some establishments in Utah are already doing this - that's their choice. But for government to require such actions is over-regulation. There's a big difference between spray paints and Saturday night specials or explosives.
Finally, Aurora is exposing itself to lawsuits from civil libertarians and paint manufacturers. The community would be well-advised to take a close look at what happened to the Chicago City Council's ban on spray paint sales last year. Although the law was less severe than Aurora's, it was struck down by a judge who said it presented constitutional problems.
A better solution would be for the city to toughen its penalties against spray-paint vandalism. Aurora may feel that its ban is a step forward. But it's two steps backward.