Home  ·   News  ·   Weather  ·   Sports  ·   Jobs  ·   Community  ·   Pics N Videos  ·   Station  ·   Marketplace  ·   6 on Your Side  ·   Contests  ·   Get Connected  ·   Blogs
Health Check · Lottery · DTV · Seasonal · Mom to Mom · Traffic · The Omaha Buzz · CityCAMS · My Weather · School Closings · HS Cribs · Restaurants · McKnight Investigates
DTV news, with your converter box scan for digital channels. You may need to move the box around the room or get an antenna. Be prepared for the Feb 17 digital transition! Click here for more info.
WOWT.com on Demand
6 On Your Cell
News, Sports & Weather
Information On Your Cell
Text ALERTS
Breaking News Alerts
Direct to Your Cell Phone
Daily e-News
News & Weather Updates
delivered via email
You Cast
Submit Your Pics
and Video
What's on 6
Your Guide to NBC
& WOWT Programming
Council Advances Graffiti Proposal, Mulls Pay Raises Save Email Print
Public hearing set for September 9th
Posted: 4:16 PM Aug 18, 2008
Last Updated: 7:31 PM Aug 19, 2008
Email Address: sixonline@wowt.com

A | A | A

The Omaha City Council gave first round approval Tuesday to a proposal requiring property owners to clean up graffiti. If it's not done within 10 days, the city will do it and bill the homeowner or business owner.

The council is also looking at giving themselves and the mayor a three percent raise each year. For the mayor that means a salary of $98,061 in 2009 and almost $114,000 by 2014.

City Council members would make $32,243 next year and $37,378 by 2014.

The issues will be up for a public hearing September 9th.

South Omaha is one of the city's most historic areas, but it also has a side that's a little unsightly. Graffiti has long been a problem in the neighborhood. It was either covered over by property owners or by the city's graffiti van at no cost.

City Councilman Chuck Sigerson says that needs to change. "Why should I, why should you and why should anyone else have to pay for the cleaning of the grafitti on some landlord's house or some apartment owner's buildings? Certainly that's within the realm of personal responsibility."

"Vandalism and graffiti can lead to more grafitti so we can't leave it there forever," says Sigerson. "So what we're saying is hey, if you don't want to do it or can't do it we'll still do it for you, but we're going to charge you for it."

"We got hit in the front," says businessman Irwin Nelson, whose business was hit recently. He's never called the city to remove graffiti. Still, he doesn't like the proposal. "It's just another way the city is trying to put everything back on the people and not do anything else."

Nelson says the problem is more deep-rooted and another way would get results. "Why do not the police get involved and try to stop some of these people? The same buildings get hit time after time. You can't tell me that they can't find out who's doing it."

Jonathan Rich's business is a constant target. He says if the ordinance eventually passes, there's not much choice. "If the ordinance is that it's going to be $70 every time we'll do what we did before we got the van, we'll get some paint and we'll paint it ourselves."

Sigerson says it costs the city hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in materials, gas and personnel. He hopes that another van could be purchased through funds gathered by using the current van.

More Stories
Residents Fed Up With Graffiti, Vandalism, Violence

Grandmother Booked For Baby's Death

Senators Back To Work In Lincoln

Bank Robber Sought

Attempted Armed Robbery

What's Going Around

Young Burglars Sought

Funding Needed for Iowa Crime Victims Fund

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: John on Aug 23, 2008 at 01:17 PM
I don't mind taking care of my own property, but why doesn't the city do the same. How about mowing all the grass in our public parks. We have 5ft tall brush in Hanscom park that hasn't been cleared for years. The graffiti on the Hummel park pavillion has not been cleared of for over a year and gets worse every week. What kind of message does that send the riff-raff that think it's fun to drink beer all night and vandalize property? That it's Ok, it's just Hummel, it's alright if MSB13 or whatever gang make it their hangout? It's too bad the city council doesn't practice what they preach to the rest of us.

Posted by: Simpleton on Aug 22, 2008 at 10:18 PM
The solution is simple. There are many gang members behind bars. Use free labor. Give them a toothbrush and a few drops of paint thinner and let them scrub for however long it takes.

Posted by: Dollar on Aug 22, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Yeah pay them more for doing nothing. Fahey set the standard. Its proof that you can get paid and not have to work.

Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 22, 2008 at 04:55 PM
lets go back to the ol days when everything was black and white and if you did something you were not suppose too the punishment was harsh maybe that way people will think twice before they do something

Posted by: JJ on Aug 21, 2008 at 08:31 PM
The gang problem could be solved in America if the government and city police were not so afraid of the gangs.I have a solution, buy a gun and wait for them to come back.

Posted by: YES! on Aug 21, 2008 at 11:39 AM
If you haven't heard, the city has shelved this dumb proposal and purchased a second graffiti van! Still the question remains, why is the city not making the arrest and prosecution of taggers a priority instead of wasting tax dollars cleaning up their mess? Logically, it would be cheaper to arrest and prosecute the tagger than to keep going back to same old addresses over and over again, year after year. OPD resources wouldn't be used to stake out those repeat locations if private citizens return to the practice of calling in the tagging as it is happening. However, unlike the present, OPD would respond to the hot call and take necessary action, be it detain, question and arrest (hopefully all of the above). If the citizens feel that they can rely on OPD to handle the graffiti issue when they call, there could be a new spirit of civic cooperation in the making, which can only benefit all parties involved in providing safer streets and neighborhoods in our community.

Posted by: Confused? on Aug 21, 2008 at 12:26 AM
The original thinking on graffiti by our city leaders was that they were taking photographs, these photographs were supposed to provide important information about gang activity to the gang unit. Now the plan is don't call us unless you want to pay for the cleanup. Another belief was that the city's effort to cleanup graffiti in a timely manner helped curb the behavior. I want to know WHY have cameras not been used to catch these vandals? Would this not have been a cheaper alternative? I have watched graffiti always become worse during winter especially after the city publicly stated their plan to wait for spring. This year graffiti was left uncared for until the CWS came to town. Now again they let it go even on city property. I am tired of calling in city property. I believe that when this occurs on their property it should disappear without a citizen complaint. This ordinance will DEFINITELY MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE!!! We need to replace the entire council along w/ the mayor!!!

Posted by: Laura on Aug 20, 2008 at 09:44 PM
I don't have a problem with covering graffiti on my house. I would do this no matter what the city said. It's my responsibility so these creatures don't think my property is their territory. I live in South Omaha and have not observed the graffiti van for over a year. Where is this "hundreds of thousands of dollars" going? How about city property? Taken a look at Hummel Park lately? The pavilion is covered and has been for the entire summer. Instead of cleaning it off, the city just closed the road going up there. Now the area is REALLY taken over by gang-bangers. Also a city responsibility: tall weeds in city parks. If property owners don't mow, we get a ticket. Hmmmm, how about the city mowing the parks COMPLETELY? A raise for all of them, my tax dollars at work!

Posted by: citizen on Aug 20, 2008 at 03:47 PM
I hope all of us who posted here will show up for the Sep 9th public hearing and let your voice be heard. Sad to say, even if the city council was to read this web site and realize how angry we are.....it would do little to change the outcome. Their priority has never been the tax payers they are supposed to serve.

Posted by: TO mike on Aug 20, 2008 at 03:06 PM
Why should the city pay for graffiti cleanup with OUR tax money? It's simple, because they REFUSE to do ANYTHING about the crime, other than stick the victim with exhorbant fines and cleanup costs ON TOP of the taxes that they already paid to PREVENT it from happening in the first place. Not to mention the GRAFFITI VAN that we (taxpayers) already bought for just this very purpose. If they want us to pay for their inability to protect and serve, I want a TOTAL refund of my tax dollars!

Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 20, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Sigerson says graffiti costs the city hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in materials, gas and personnel. Okay. What would it cost to arrest the artistic gangbangers? But hey, let's do some more math. It costs the city hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay the mayor and city council each year. I have an idea: every time the city passes a new law, let's have the people affected by the new law pay for it. We'd have made a mint just with the smoking ordinance! And to justify it, we could have said that smokers would suddenly have a lot of extra money, because they're not smoking as much anymore.

Posted by: Patrick on Aug 20, 2008 at 02:22 PM
mike, if my windows get broken out or my tires get slashed, I expect the police to be searching for suspects. With graffiti, the police are doing nothing to find the criminals, even though the artist's tag is a signature, making it easy for police to identify each artist. Here's the most frustrating thing about the city's backward logic: they know exactly where to catch graffiti artists in the act, but they won't do it. Sigerson himself said "graffiti can lead to more graffiti ...", yet they won't stake out those areas where they know it's going to happen again and again! Like businessman Nelson said, "The same buildings get hit time after time." mike, if your windows were being broken time after time, or your tires were being slashed time after time, you'd be demanding the police to stake out and arrest the criminal. Don't give me your "it's the same thing" argument, when the crimes aren't treated the same. Keep you ignorance to yourself.

Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 20, 2008 at 01:03 PM
If I catch a graffiti artist am I allowed to strip them to there shorts and spray graffiti all over ther body. I hope hefty fines are in place for the vandals if caught plus full restitution to the property owner.

Posted by: No Thanks on this ordinance! on Aug 20, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Here is the difference between the city's ordinance about weeds etc. and this. If I choose to let the weeds and grass get out of control on my property that is something I control. If some gang decides that they want to take over my neighborhood and starts tagging everywhere that is NOT my choice. The City Council is not listening to the opinions of the residents again.

Posted by: Raise? on Aug 20, 2008 at 11:58 AM
How can they justify raises when the economy is in the tank and folks are meekly scraping pennies to make ends meet, not to mention the low quality job this administration has done for the citizens of Omaha, including the handling of the graffiti issue? This whole thing SMELLS like sweeping the matter under a rug (called the taxpayer) without DOING THEIR JOB (which is to come up with a way to STOP GRAFFITI, not DEAL WITH THE MESS these criminals leave in their wake). In the REAL world, performance evaluations are given and raises reflect the evaluation presented. If true here (I graded the city with an F for NO EFFORT on citizen issues), the band of misfits that run this city would OWE us money for mismanagement of city funds & resources PLUS their complete inability to address immediate citizen concerns. Our message should be clear; want a RAISE? Then EARN it before you demand it! In this case, we DO have a voice!

Posted by: Please! on Aug 20, 2008 at 11:43 AM
It's time for the police department to get off their collective butts and earn those spiked pension funds they expect the PRVATE CITIZEN to pay for. Or are they just MAD because the loophole that allowed for pension spiking has finally been closed. They can't argue that they don't have enough resources when private citizens are standing in the front lines and calling in for help WHILE THE CRIME IS BEING COMMITTED! If we make the effort, they better had as well or be responsible for the carnage about to ensue when a upstanding citizen catches a tagger. Being as it is criminal trespass, the citizen should be allowed to use deadly force to prevent this crime and the financial burden our city government wants to attach to the victim. Is it that hard to track down a license plate? No? Just lazy or simply don't care? Please explain the police department's complete apathy towards graffiti and associated criminals. Taxpaying citizens deserve an honest answer.

Posted by: Really? on Aug 20, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Let's get this straight, the city REFUSES to arrest and prosecute the offenders but redirects righteously irate citizens to a 'complaint' voicemail box as their ultimate solution. Then they attempt to absolve the govenment of any responsibility by putting the financial burden of the the crime back on the victim, who are also responsible for buying the graffiti van that they can't use without incurring further debt. On top of that, the city feels entitled to a raise for dreaming up this devious scheme. Where can I sign up for a job like their's where I can totally screw things up (double points if I say it's for PROGRESS) go home and get paid almost $40K a year? These people must be held in contempt and any chance to remove them from office should be vigorously pursued, including writing in candidate N.O.T.A. if they are the only candidate available at election time. We can't realistically put up the status-quo, none of us can afford these idiots anymore. Let them know on Sept 9th!

Posted by: DHB on Aug 20, 2008 at 11:22 AM
It was my understanding that Chuck's an attorney...? Can I legally paint "*expletive deleted* you, Chuck!" on the front of my house? If I do it myself it's not grafitti or vandalism, it's my expression of art!

Posted by: mike on Aug 20, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Why should the city have to pay for damage (graffiti) that was done on "your" own private property? Would you all expect the city to pay for your windows that get broken out or if your tires were slashed by any of the same punks. NO you wouldnt so why should they pay just because your building was tagged?

Posted by: CC on Aug 20, 2008 at 11:00 AM
I defy the city to prove they are entitled to any raises, this year or in the near future. Our roads are terrible, crime is still rampant everywhere, vandalism has skyrocketed in terms of dollar amounts/frequency and no amount of civic responsiblilty will convince our so-called leaders to catch and punish the guilty instead of laying the blame and expense on the taxpayer who has already paid for protection (and any cleanup) from this crime. Sigerson's idiot plan will driveout businesses in areas attempting to make an honest turnaround and drive up insurance costs for the homeowner without providing any relief or resolution to this ongoing crisis. Sigerson IS in the insurance business so maybe this is all about HIS profits. Apparently the GRAFFITI VAN could be turned into a profit engine instead of providing the service that the taxpayer has already been billed and PAID for. Our leaders don't deserve any raise and I think we are entitled to a refund for services NOT rendered.

Posted by: T on Aug 20, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I can not believe no one noticed that they are planning a pay raise for themselves. Maybe if they took a pay cut, the money could be used for..hummm, let me think, to clean up the graffiti? If they take a large enough cut, maybe hire more police? Dang I wish I could vote myself a raise!

Posted by: Calling a a Spade on Aug 20, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Dearest a, if a window gets broken on your car or house, does the city require you to fix it in 10 days, or they'll fix it and charge you? No. Your idiotic analogy doesn't even come close to matching the graffiti situation. If I break a window, or course I expect to take responsibility to replace it, but on my own time.

Posted by: Patrick on Aug 20, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Dear a, I can only assume you are a proponent of vigilante justice. After all, why have the city pay for police if the citizens can do it themselves? As you've noted, the police presence is inadequate, anyway. And the mayor and the councilmen: why should they receive any pay? They're merely citizens doing what they were elected to do. They should take personal responsibility for their own expenses incurred by being elected officials. (Besides, they're making a whole lot more than those salaries by wielding their political clout.) If they want us to take this graffiti law seriously, let them take the first step.

Posted by: to a on Aug 20, 2008 at 09:53 AM
do you have any graffiti in your area?

Posted by: Chortle on Aug 20, 2008 at 09:23 AM
First, they don't allow a vote on one of the most important issues this city has faced (CWA), even ignoring overwhelming public demand. Next they decide to approve the $140 million expense against the wishes of the majority of citizens of this fair city for a project we don't want nor need (NO-DO). And after making a grand case to enact an ID check for spraypaint (to prevent graffiti) which fails miserably, they now propose to make the victim financially responsible for a crime the city can but WON'T prevent. The knee-slapper is the 3% raise they want to graciously grant themselves for doing such a crappy job. What a hoot! If my job's performance evaluation was a bad as our merry band of dolt's escapades have been, my company would demand all their money back! Speaking of money, where is all of our hardearned but easily taxed or otherwise ripped-out-of-our-pocket dollars going if not to provide protection from the crimnal element of this city? What idiots we have in office...

Posted by: Lori on Aug 20, 2008 at 09:12 AM
Someone should take Chuck in for a medical check. It's obvious he's had a stroke of some kind and is babbling nonsense. Don't the city taxes we ALREADY PAY cover criminal activity?? Graffati isn't the same as storm damage to your home.

Posted by: Motives? on Aug 20, 2008 at 08:49 AM
So we cut a service, put victims at greater risk, then pat ourselves on the back and get a raise with the money saved. It sounds just like the stadium deal that was shoved down our throats. This will be done the same way. The council is never around unless they are planning to approve their newest dumb ideas for our city. The mayor is always out of town on our dime. The leaders of this community do not have ANY intention of truly LISTENING to the REAL needs of this city. Instead they give themselves a raise and cut services to do so, including our right to vote. I hope every one of them become a target of graffiti. PLEASANTVILLE comes to mind when I think about the fantasy world they base their decisions on. We the citizens are not educated enough like them, they will plan our lives to suit their needs. IT IS TIME FOR NEW LEADERSHIP!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rose on Aug 20, 2008 at 08:28 AM
We have found from experience that the only people you can depend on is ourselves. The city services are lacking when it comes to protecting and serving our people. Unless the police WITNESS the crime it did not happen unless of course their is blood. We saw a drive by shooting, called police, then we were told by the neighborhood leader the police said it happened six blocks away, no one was shot just at a house, then a week later during the day while talking w/this person,I noticed the shell casings by the curb. Graffiti in progress, we called to be told that it was not a police problem. We were told by newsletter to call 911. Now there will be many more victims, with the criminals knowing the city & police have no time nor money to come after them. The sick & elderly will be targets not only by graffiti but by the city TOO. Another service cut!!! It is time for our leaders to be honest about the financial condition of this city.

Posted by: TO a on Aug 20, 2008 at 08:25 AM
Don't need a crystal ball, just due-diligence to catch these punks. The police have been provided more information than should be necessary to arrest these criminals but refuse to act! When you call and they dismiss you ("please call the mayor's action hotline) while the crime is being commited, THAT IS THE PROBLEM! Are you telling me that Omaha's finest is totally inept? OK, I believe you but that still doesn't offer the taxpaying home or business owner any viable solutions to addressing the problem. If damage to private property is the direct result of the city's inability to answer the citizen's call for help than the city should cleanup the CRIME SCENE, not the victim who keeps calling for help. This plan sidesteps the REAL issue and that is how to deal with the hoodlums responsible. The answer should be simple, OPPD do your job! When we call and provide a license plate, you BETTER go after them, not redirect the caller to an office that cares zilch for their plight.

Posted by: Tom on Aug 20, 2008 at 05:34 AM
This city is going to hell in a handbag, time to sell and get out of town.

Posted by: Bill on Aug 20, 2008 at 05:02 AM
The Mayor and the City Council DO NOT deserve pay raises. The Mayor loves to spend, and the City Council is just as bad. I get a lousy 2% raise a year and that doesn't keep up with inflation. We pay our bills on time and are never late in paying them. When the Mayor and City Council can show me they can run the city in the black, then and only then they should get pay raises!

Posted by: a on Aug 19, 2008 at 11:38 PM
dear rustyfan, could please look in your crystal ball and let the police know when and where the next graffiti crime will take place. The fact is, there are not enough officers on the streets to answer the radio calls, how are they supposed to be pro-active and prevent these crimes. If your window gets broke on your car or house, is the city supposed to pay to have it repaired? If its on private property, let the owner fix it.

Posted by: "Mulls?" on Aug 19, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Why even put that adjective in there? Are they trying to act like congress? ALL politicians are scammers. I'm waiting for the day we have an election and nobody shows up...

Posted by: GAry on Aug 19, 2008 at 09:08 PM
TO J... I promise you this..because I have seen it at Wal-MArt(132nd L) They will and do sell to people under 18 in Omaha. And if they are stealing it or getting it from someone else,they still need to be beaten down and have the paint fed to them. REGARDLESS OF AGE! I did it to kids who were egging cars in my area,actually i just took the eggs from them and pelted them with them. Mommy and daddy called the cops,the cops shook my hand..after the parents left!

Posted by: HA! on Aug 19, 2008 at 08:32 PM
This ridiculous proposal is directed solely at the victims of the crime and doesn't address the apparently lame inability of our city government to effectively deal with the true criminals involved. How hypocritical of our elected officials as they demand a raise from the very folks they are proposing to fine and demand cleanup charges from. Doesn't it remind you of a pickpocket reaching in and grabbing your money while presenting you a bill for services rendered?? It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically close to being a reality. Unless we use any and all opportunities to convince our silly (I mean city) leaders that they have flipped their collective lids, Grandma and Grandpa(who live on a fixed income) could be forced out of their retirement house because of the recurring cleanup charges and outrageous fines imposed by an uncaring city administration as the true criminals walk by the property, laughing in their tear stained faces.

Posted by: Marty on Aug 19, 2008 at 07:57 PM
To quote Nebraska AG, Jon Bruning, "people deserve to get what they pay for"... If he truely believes his own statement then he should open an investigation into the city's response to our graffiti! We definitely aren't getting our monies worth from the mayor or city council (and note that they even want a raise) when they punish the victims of crime for simply being victims and offer no solution to their plight. Talk about kicking someone when they're down! Not bad enough that the taxpayer is apparently (and solely) responsible for any criminal's activities but we have no recourse in the matter but to bend over and smile!? Where is the justice in this? If allowed to pass, this law will encourage every tagger in the city to be as creative as they please without any fear of legal retribution. If any citizen of this city goes to trial for killing a tagger because of the lack of police protection and enforcement, it will be directly due to the actions of Mayor Folley and Co.

Posted by: WRONG! on Aug 19, 2008 at 07:27 PM
Our city leaders are granting themselves an unwarranted 3% YEARLY RAISE and offering NO solution to the graffiti problem other than charge the poor taxpayer for being VICTIMS of a crime! How magnanimous of them, eh! IF they had done just ONE sensible thing that curbed graffiti or improved the image of this city, I might have conceded a raise but you can bet that I am going to show up at the public meeting on Sept 6th and tell them, "No more raises until you DO YOUR JOB (which is to act in the best interests of the citizens of this city), not what YOU THINK YOUR JOB IS". Sorta like 'buying' protection from the mob but still required to pay extortion! Why are we paying Fahey $100K & $32K per council member to be TOLD to cleanup a CRIME SCENE that we are in NO WAY responsible for?? Like rubbing salt in an open wound and these idiots expect to get away with it and WE ARE GONNA LET THEM??!! Are we!?!? This is a travesty in the making and we are all witnesses.

Posted by: Obomination on Aug 19, 2008 at 06:31 PM
Why should innocent property owners have to pay for this? Send the illegal immigrants back where they came from. Ban spray paint sales to illegals and gang members. As usual the Mayor is doing nothing to solve this.

Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 19, 2008 at 06:00 PM
rustyfan: good point! Maybe Sigerson's next plan is to have police arrest gang members and charge the neighbors for the arrests. Then the police can use the money to buy more patrol cars and weapons - after they replenish the retirement fund, of course.

Posted by: Dan on Aug 19, 2008 at 05:59 PM
Isn't Chucky an insurance agent? Maybe this whole thing is a ploy to be able to raise rates for people after they start using their insurance to cover the graffiti. Save the city money - line Chucky's pockets that sounds like a win-win situation!

Posted by: Any Lawyers? on Aug 19, 2008 at 05:04 PM
Doesn't it violate the Omaha city charter if the city cannot provide effective protection for all of it's citizens, especially if the result of a particular crime jeapordizes any citizen's financial well-being and the city has already been paid to prevent it? Like other failing city services that were brought about by irresponsible city planning (by taking in more territory & new citizens than they can possibly serve with the existing infrastructure), this is a prime example of what ails this city and that is mismanagement of resources and responsibilities. If this issue doesn't do anything else, it does point out just how the taxpayers are viewed in this administration's eyes and that is as the resident CASH COW! Need a stadium? CASH COW! Remove graffiti? CASH COW! Bad roads? CASH COW! Pension funds? CASH COW! WE keep paying new service fees and more in tax dollars but the city services are getting worse! Where did OUR money go???

Posted by: rustyfan on Aug 19, 2008 at 04:55 PM
sigerson "hopes that another van could be purchased through funds gathered by using the current van"? so he views the city's gang / graffiti problem as a money-making opportunity? how sickening. that van was purchased with tax money to serve the taxpayers. if the police / gang units did their jobs properly, maybe the van wouldn't be needed at all.

Posted by: Anthony on Aug 19, 2008 at 04:31 PM
Fining the helpless victims and FORCING them to incur the repeated costs for gangland cleanup but no mention of dealing with those who are actually responsible?? Yepper! That sounds just like our sad city council! This is the same brain trust who stated that requiring photo IDs to purchase spray paint would help cut down on graffiti, don't you remember? When the ONLY solution is to deal directly with these vandals by arresting them and forcing them to PAY for their deeds (or plan B; kicking their happy butts all the way to Mom's house and charging her for all our expenses), Sigerson sneers and asks, "Why should I ... have to pay"? Same question back at ya', CHUCK! Why do the citizens and taxpayers have to pay for an inept police department and the city council's obvious inability to protect our city from simple vandals. If you can't handle that, how do you expect us to believe you can handle the TOUGH stuff like violent crime? In this instance, there is a DIRECT correlation!

Posted by: Just Me on Aug 19, 2008 at 04:27 PM
Why should homeowners be responisible to clean up the graffti on thier house? those who needs to pay and clean it up are the punks that painted it on. Its just not S O or N O its every where even here in Millard. graffti is wrong and the PUNKS who does it needs to clean it up and then maybe sit some time in Jail. i for one do not want my homeowners insurance to go up any more than what it already has. If I catch a Punk writting Graffti on my hhose I will cut off his hands.

Posted by: Todd on Aug 19, 2008 at 02:29 PM
NO....do not pass this ordinance. If the city doesn't like paying to clean up graffiti, they they should be more motivated to finding those who paint it. Substantially increase the fines for those who get caught. Also, instead of jail, put them on work detail 12 hours a day removing graffiti. This is yet another example of the city dodging real responsibility for this problem and putting the burden on the victim homeowner or business owner. Yet, another example of the you're on your own society.

Posted by: Lori on Aug 19, 2008 at 02:21 PM
I will agree with anyone saying the mayor's hotline is a joke. So far, our quiet neighborhood has only had hit-and-miss vandalism...mostly loud kids tearing up park equipment. The cops NEVER come out, the mayor's hotline is NEVER answered...it's like beating your head against a wall. Maybe we'll move out in the country, to be away from the element that likes destroying other people's property.

Posted by: Mickey on Aug 19, 2008 at 02:11 PM
We hear, year after year, how this administration is going to CLEAN UP graffiti and what EXTREME measures they are going to use to prevent it in the future, to no avail. But at NO TIME have we ever heard anyone officially propose a plan to CATCH the perps and punish them! Wouldn't catching the culprits, putting them behind bars and slapping them with the cleanup costs (times 2) deter repeat and first time offenders? You can't tell me Omaha's finest isn't sophisicated enough to catch these vandals, they just aren't trying (don't believe me? Call in a graffiti report and see what their reaction is). Wouldn't it be cheaper for all taxpayers to catch/punish these taggers than repeatedly cleaning up their mess and letting them off cart-blanche? Seems to be a ton of SERVICES that this city charges it's fair citizens for that it simply can't provide, doesn't that raise suspicion on where all the tax money/fees is actually going? Exhorbant Police & Fire pension plans?? NO-DO?? What??

Posted by: Tim on Aug 19, 2008 at 01:34 PM
More effort need to be placed on catching those who engage in this activity. Granted most are probably juvinile but the punishment needs to send a message. They need to be incarcerated.

Posted by: HL on Aug 19, 2008 at 01:23 PM
Gosh, this is a GREAT proposal! For the next item on the agenda, can we have a proposal that states that any private citizen is responsible for handling ANY crime or injury against him/her? Let's see... someone burgles my house, so I'm responsible for finding the thief, capturing him, and prosecuting him - oh, yeah, and finding prison accommodations for him. And if someone drives like a maniac, rear-ends my car, and takes off, I'm responsible for chasing him down, catching him... you get the point. It's bad enough that we have to pay to get a car out of impound if some punk breaks into & steals it, then trashes it. Elections are coming up, folks - let's show these clueless dimwits just how much we appreciate these brilliant suggestions.

Posted by: DJ on Aug 19, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Thanks, Chuck. You don't live in an area where this happens frequently, do you? We do. Now you want add insult to injury. These thugs vandalize our property under the cover of darkness. Few are caught, fewer still receive any punishment at all. Now the victims will receive an additional blow. We have cleaned up the graffiti on our property, but when are police and the judicial system going to get serious about catching and punishing the criminals who do this? Until then, the city needs to at least help the victims of these crimes who cannot do it themselves.

Posted by: Sarah on Aug 19, 2008 at 12:09 PM
What about my church? My husband called the police when he witnessed some kid tagging our church rather than run him down, and was told there was nothing they could do about it, and no don't run him down. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Tell you what little graffiti children, do me a favor and go to Mr. Sigerson's home/business and just go nuts!! Then we can see if he still supports his own stupid idea.

Posted by: Tony on Aug 19, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Why don't YOU join your nieghborhood watch, James.....and then you'll see how little the police and city care about the graffati problem. I patrol with our neighborhood watch group in midtown and we DO call in reports to be told to call the Mayor's line on Monday. You can have a plate number, description, etc. No one at 911 wants to bothered with graffati.

Posted by: J on Aug 19, 2008 at 11:54 AM
@Jarbeau: Homeowners' insurance normally has a deductible, starting at $250 and going up. I read one place that the cost is $30 - $40 to cover up graffiti *properly*, another place I read $70. All well below the $250 deductible threshold. You do have to have the right kind of tools and paint to cover graffiti properly; otherwise it just bleeds through the cheap house paint. @Bill in LaVista: Omaha HAS an ordinance against selling spray paint to anyone under 18. So either the perpetrators are 18 or are buying it from someone who doesn't speak enough English to know the ordinance, which would explain the heavy amount of tagging in So. O.

Posted by: To Juan on Aug 19, 2008 at 11:53 AM
SO... You must LOVE throwing money away? Everytime you paint over a tag, expect the tagger to be back, WHY? Because there is no legal RAMIFICATION for what they are doing and no punishment PERIOD if they are caught redhanded. Why are we funding a police department that CAN'T (or simply WON'T) do anything about it? Why do YOU believe the nut who came up with this plan is thinking of the TAXPAYER's best interest? It's not a matter of personal PRIDE as you insinuate, I for one am very PROUD of my modest home and take extraordinary responsibilty with it (didn't see anyone else cleanup MY mess from the last storm). You must be rich to think you can provide yourself with a enough housepaint, so again I ask, LIKE THROWING MONEY AWAY? The issue is LAW ENFORCEMENT not community pride. Get those responsible behind bars and the problem will correct itself. Or maybe we should just the LAW into our own hands, eh? That's what this plan will force us to do if the CITY doesn't act!

Posted by: Patrick on Aug 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Juan, that's a nice sentiment, but nothing more. It's not that residents don't take pride and responsibility for their own property. It's that gangs don't take pride in their own city. But let me see if I understand you. If your house is burning, would you call the city fire department for assistance? Would you expect to pay for their services (in addition to your taxes)? (Maybe you rent and don't care, because it's not your "own property.") Should the firefighters treat you as if the fire is your fault? If you were robbed, would you call the city police for assistance? Would you expect to pay for their services (in addition to your taxes)? Should the police treat you like the robbery is your fault? Would you tip a police officer for helping you? It's time to rethink your ideology about city services, Juan.

Posted by: To James on Aug 19, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Ahem... Witnessed the crime (and the culprits were still on site). Called 911 and reported the license plate of the offender's SUV, know what I was told? "CALL THE MAYOR'S ACTION HOTLINE". Same type of instance at a high school where I witnessed and reported (to the resident police officer) students breaking ALL of the windows on another student's vehicle, know what I was told? "Sorry but since I (as in the police officer himself) didn't witness it, there is NOTHING I can do". When will this city's police department actually "Protect and Serve" the citizens of this fair city? Catch the punks who are vandalizing our communitiy and MAKE them PAY, don't tell the citizens 'it's not our problem' and expect the taxpayers (who are already overburdened with our runaway tax burden) to pick up the slack, WHAT ARE WE ALREADY PAYING FOR?? I guarantee that some tagger is going to get blown away by an infuriated citizen if this stupid plan passes. It's time to audit the books and find our $$.

Posted by: t on Aug 19, 2008 at 11:15 AM
While I don't necessarily agree with Sigerson's proposal, fighting graffiti is important, folks. Most of the graffiti is done by gangs marking their turf. If you look at it closely, you may see a rival gang has tagged over another gang's mark. Most of the shootings in North & South Omaha are gang-related, with gangs fighting over their turf. While eliminating graffiti won't eliminate all gang-related crimes, it certainly does help in the battle.

Posted by: Juan on Aug 19, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Why would any resident look towards the government for assistance? Just imagine how good things would be if everyone took pride in and responsibility for their own property.

Posted by: Millard on Aug 19, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Come on Chuck, we're punishing the victim here. It's bad enough that these gangs feel the need to vandalize what isn't theirs, now Chuck wants to stick it to them too? What a joke!

Posted by: DUH on Aug 19, 2008 at 10:25 AM
How about the gang and gun problem? But, by God, that graffiti issue will be taken care of!! Bad move Chuck.

Posted by: Jarbeau on Aug 19, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Isn't that what insurance is for?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen on Aug 19, 2008 at 10:01 AM
My husband & I offered cameras for free and were turned down. We have turned in a plate number to 911 during the act to be told to wait until Monday and call the mayor's office only to be told they were only interested in cleaning it up not catching the one's responsible. The police told us they did not want the information because it was not a shooting or violent crime in progress. Our neighbor waited all day for an officer to report broken car windows. Even if we caught these people in the act it would make little difference, there are no police to do the job. The fuel to catch them would be more costly then the paint they use to cover it up. Our city is broke, is the truth, because FAHEY & COUNCIL lived high on the hog with grand plans without the money to live their dream rather than be held accountable for the TRUE condition of this city. It is time to PUSH for a balanced budget with the first priority being the responsibilities to the tax payers not their personal agendas.

Posted by: James on Aug 19, 2008 at 09:45 AM
Why don't more people join their neighborhood watch groups and seriously start calling this stuff into 911 and other suspicious activity. You can learn more here, http://occp.tripod.com/

Posted by: Curious on Aug 19, 2008 at 09:32 AM
Note to all of the complainers: If you see a crime happening call someone and take a stand, become a witness and spek up for your self. I know the city does not always respond well (I had my car tagged int he street, I called it in and had to leave a message but nobody ever called me back) but they have to prioritize there manpower. If we helped them solve larger crimes, such as murder they may have more time to focus on the smaller crimes. Penalizing the victim is not a good idea but maybe it will make people more aware of their surroundings and neighbors. Install motion detectors on your home and help out each other.

Posted by: Derek on Aug 19, 2008 at 09:31 AM
I just have to say that anyone who agrees with this proposal is an idiot. Honestly, why does graffiti have to be cleaned up. What if the owner likes the graffiti and looks at it as art. Now I know this probably isn't the case, but how can the city prove this isn't art and that the owner should have to pay to cover up the owners freedom of expression. Honestly, if someone "tagged" my house I would cover it up. But what if I wanted to "tag" my own house. Is there a law that says I can't paint what I want on my house? I have never heard of one. The city shouldn't have to pay to cover up graffiti, but the owners shouldn't have to cover it up if they don't want to. It is paint, Sigerson is acting ridiculous. Sigerson should quit trying to control other peoples property. But we all know he has trouble keeping his hands to himself.

Posted by: anonymous on Aug 19, 2008 at 09:24 AM
This is complete and utter nonsense, how about this, catch the idiots and make them pay for the damage, novel idea, isn't that what the police are for??

Posted by: Bill on Aug 19, 2008 at 08:46 AM
It doesn’t sound as if the councilman has given much thought to the problem; just a knee-jerk reaction to the problem. Has the city considered using jail inmates to do the work? How many welfare recipients are sitting at home watching Oprah when they could be used to clean up the graffiti mess as a condition of receiving their welfare check? What about using increase police presence at locations that are constantly being hit? If you have to register for certain over-the-counter drugs to curb meth production, why don’t you have to register when you buy a can of paint? If someone buys a gross of blue paint and a very blue tag appears somewhere, you at least have a starting point to look for the culprit. What other options can be used? Too many questions unanswered and not enough thinking by the councilman and his cohorts.

Posted by: Mike on Aug 19, 2008 at 08:32 AM
Another very dim bulb idea from those who are SUPPOSED TO BE looking out for the taxpayer's best interests... I agree, if the city decides to fine the VICTIMS of crime for being victims then lets arm ourselves and take care of the situations that apparently this city can't address without putting the responsibility directly on the taxpayers (or does Sigerson think someone else owns those properties he wants to fine). It's no wonder folks laugh when you say your from Omaha when our elected officials open their mouth and remove all doubt about Omaha's IQ level. With leadership like this current city administration to lead us, the citizens should be VERY concerned when it comes election time. What next? 10 cent toilet paper usage fees? Where do we get these people?

Posted by: J on Aug 19, 2008 at 08:03 AM
Chuck Sigerson's business is on the NE corner of 108th & Fort. He was involved in the same Boy Scout Troop my boys were, so he lives up in NW Omaha. While I did see a large phone company trunk panel tagged near church on Sunday (NW Omaha), that area just doesn't have the problems w/ graffiti that So. Omaha does. My mother's near So. Omaha neighborhood has a terrible problem with it. Most of those people are elderly, on a fixed income. One coat of cheap paint doesn't cover the tagging and that's about all the money and energy these folks have. Her neighborhood looks positively sparkling compared to the Indian Hill neighborhood, where if it's stationary, it's tagged. I believe in pride of ownership, but the City of Omaha has to demonstrate it, as well. And they should demonstrate it by sending out that graffiti van, free of charge.

Posted by: William on Aug 19, 2008 at 07:32 AM
I think it is time for the voters in Sigerson's district to vote him out of office. I hope his house and business gets tagged, then the shoe will be on the other foot.

Posted by: Bob on Aug 19, 2008 at 07:28 AM
Time Ol' Chuck gets a reality Check! Looks like someone hit him with a bucket of stupidity. Just how are the one's on a fixed income or disability going to be able to pay for the graffiti crime?

Posted by: d on Aug 19, 2008 at 06:57 AM
This grafitti problem is a crime problem and as such is the responsibility of the city to solve it. The property owner is not responsibile for fighting crime in this city. The fact that this is happening reveals that the police and city are not doing the job that they are paid to do.

Posted by: Timothy on Aug 19, 2008 at 03:35 AM
I am sorry but this is punishing the victim. I know how about making it a $1000 dollar mandatory fine. Also a crime that can not be reduced or changed to something else. So a judge can't change or reduce the charge. That or people I would say start getting rock salt and nailing them with that when you catch them.

Posted by: Timothy on Aug 19, 2008 at 03:29 AM
I would ask what they consider graffiti. If the person says it is a work of art then wouldn't it be a violation of the first amendment. Not like we don't see moronic things like that get passed through the courts. Isn't it also the city responsibility to stop crimes. If they want to start this then fine. Then the police better show that they are actively showing up and documenting the crime and doing their jobs. Also this is not like mowing my yard or snow removal. those are acts of god ( or nature ) This is a crime and cost alot more money than a dollar or two for the other. Maybe if the city removes all taxes on paint then maybe but yeah right.

Posted by: Terry on Aug 19, 2008 at 12:32 AM
I would ask every graffiti violater in the city to find out where Chuck Sigersons lives and make it a point to show us your artistic skills on his private property, week after week. Then lets see what he thinks about this stupid, biased, legislation.

Posted by: Yes Bill on Aug 18, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Bill is correct. Much like Texas law, deadly force should be allowed to stop in-progress felonies against persons or their property.

Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 18, 2008 at 10:55 PM
If this passes, we'll see the equivalent reduction in taxes, right?

Posted by: Jeff on Aug 18, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Hmm. Sigerson is saying the home owner is responsible. Specifically, he's blaming the home owner for being the victim of a crime. While we're at it, let's make identity theft victims pay for the debt the criminals incur. After all, according to Sigerson, "Why should I, why should you and why should anyone else have to pay for the [debt incurred on City Councilman's card or some businessman's bank account]? Certainly that's within the realm of personal responsibility." Give it up Chuck. You get an "F" in Logical Thinking.

Posted by: Itica on Aug 18, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Shoot them! They are trespassing. Don't shoot to kill, just maim. Preferably the arm they paint with. Then they can't do it again.

Posted by: Jen on Aug 18, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Sounds like a sure-fire way to drive businesses and decent residents out of areas prone to this often gang-related activity, and to discourage any new businesses. That further depresses the economy of these areas which are already in desperate need. That's a guaranteed recipe for creating a slum. It gives victory to these gangs. Chuck Sigerson is a dolt, who obviously lacks any competence. The answer is not to further victimize the victims; the answer is come up with some solutions to catch and effectively punish these hoodlums, and to come up with solutions to steer kids away from gang life in the first place.

Posted by: Larry on Aug 18, 2008 at 09:43 PM
After at least 2 months, the grafitti on the Sorensen Lib/Rec center just got removed-but not until it had been added to. Mayor's Hotline had been CALLED AS HAD THE GANG UNIT.

Posted by: steve on Aug 18, 2008 at 09:17 PM
somebody should tag chuck sigerson house and buisness with a red robin and then make him pay to get it removed

Posted by: Googy on Aug 18, 2008 at 08:59 PM
I say the city provide Paint Ball guns for everyone, if we can catch them in the act we have right to shoot them with the paint ball guns marking them so everyone knows they are vandals. If homeowners need to paint, then the city should provide free paint at the very least.

Posted by: Gotta cut costs! on Aug 18, 2008 at 08:56 PM
If the truth was made public; I'll bet the city is broke, they can't pay the bills on pension funds they don't have the money for, nor maintain the roads, or field an effective Police force all at the same time, and the money just simply isn't there to pay for it all. As usual, when government is broke they try and rob Peter to pay Paul hoping people don't figure it out. Look around at the services that were once available in this town that have been cut and abandoned because of money over the last couple of years. Do ya think will still need a stadium? It might make a nice homeless shelter in the off season!

Posted by: Bill on Aug 18, 2008 at 08:49 PM
I think the home owner/property owner should be allowed to shoot the offenders in the act. Maybe then, graffitti incidents would go down.

Posted by: Ray on Aug 18, 2008 at 07:51 PM
What's next, Will we have to shovel the street in front of each of our homes, Since the city of Omahaha didn't cause the snow.

Posted by: What about the city??? on Aug 18, 2008 at 06:54 PM
I've seen gang graffiti on a bus shelter on Farnam for over a year, after numerous calls nothing has been done. No way will I clean my property until I see the city do the same.

Posted by: Tom on Aug 18, 2008 at 06:40 PM
I agree with Sigerson. Why is covering up graffiti the responsibility of the city and taxpayers? We didn't put it there. I'm sure the police are working on it, but with all the shootings and violent crime in Omaha don't you think they're trying to address that first? Sorry property owners, I feel sorry for what you have to put up with, but cleaning it up is part of the responsibility you have as an owner.

Posted by: B on Aug 18, 2008 at 06:24 PM
I am totally against this proposal. I have been "tagged" more than a dozen times since I bought my house. With one exception, I have cleaned up the damage myself. The time I didn't I was hospitalized for open heart surgery. Councilman Sigerson needs to realize that many that live in the hardest hit areas are elderly, disabled, on a fixed income or otherwise unable to take care of the damage and would be unduly burdened by a $70 fee. Way to kick someone when they are down.

Posted by: cb on Aug 18, 2008 at 05:57 PM
oh goody lets punish the people who are the victims--so typical of Omaha government--we aren't going to do anything to catch the people doing this and it is your responisbility to clean it up. Of course the businesses will have to raise prices so that they can afford to pay for the clean up but the city doesn't give a "hoot" about it. It must be because they are so busy cleaning up crime in other parts of the city--NOT

Posted by: Duh on Aug 18, 2008 at 05:26 PM
Is this for real? Got to be a joke. What a dumb idea. How bout getting these bleeding heart liberal judges to throw the book at these vandals when they get caught??? As always, the victim has less rights then the criminal...

Posted by: Lis on Aug 18, 2008 at 05:25 PM
Why should the victim have to incur the cost???? Is it the victim's fault??? Absolutely not. Have police patrol the streets more and catch the vandals. Make the vandals &/or their parents pay for it!!!! Maybe tehn it will stop!!!!

Posted by: PB on Aug 18, 2008 at 05:21 PM
That's the dumbest idea I've heard in quite awhile. Punish the property owners because the city can't get a grip to stop graffiti. If this passes, I only see it getting worse because the punks that do it will think it's more fun. If you want to stop graffiti - start catching them - make them wash it off or paint it - at their own cost - and pay a hefty fine - and spend a few nights in detention- for 1st offense. Putting it all on the property owner is ridiculous.

Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 18, 2008 at 05:14 PM
Is city is now going to tell you which paint can and can not be on a privatly owned building? I the graffiti does not bother the owner why should they have to take care of it?

Posted by: Anonymous on Aug 18, 2008 at 04:53 PM
So does that mean that if I don't like someone (or someone doesn't like me) all I/they have to do is vandalize my property so I have to keep footing the bill? Nice...really nice.

Posted by: Personal Responsibility on Aug 18, 2008 at 04:53 PM
I think the people in these neighborhoods should pay attention & turn in the little thug scum that are doing this...then the police could arrest them & they can be dealt with. THey can pay to have the damage fixed & a large fine & if we are lucky and htey are not here legally we can deport them & their family members.

Posted by: Annette on Aug 18, 2008 at 04:48 PM
I am not a target and I hope I don't ever become one. I don't have the extra money or manpower to paint every few weeks. I don't think some of the people targeted are able to handle it. A few I know are senior citizens.

Posted by: Gary on Aug 18, 2008 at 04:48 PM
So if the property owner is require to remove it. Can the property owner also beat the crap out of the criminals doing it? Or are they required to watch them do it so we dont violate thier rights? Sounds like the city only wants to push the problem off on someone else! I gurantee you this,If I catch anyone doing that to my property..I will take the spray can shove it in their mout and they wioll eat the paint! REGARDLESS OF AGE!

Posted by: Darleen on Aug 18, 2008 at 04:39 PM
I agree with Mr. Nelson, elected Omaha government officials should be held accoun table for allowing criminals to get away with destroying property. Mr. Sigerson is just adding insult to injury, by punishing the property owner.

Posted by: L on Aug 18, 2008 at 04:37 PM
Why not use that money for cameras to catch the kids doing this stuff and make them pay for it and also punish the parents, since they cannot teach the child right from wrong. Those fines should be really high. Just keep moving the cameras around town til word gets around that you will get caught and you will pay a high price for your stupidity.

AP Online Network
YOU CAST - YOUR PICS N VIDEOS
Media Partners