From Sunday's T-P comes the article Vandalism or Art? on, well, the recently hot topic of graffiti throughout the city. At the end it referenced a new bill going into effect on August 15, 2008: House Bill No. 163 (Act No. 8), authored primarily by Rep. Tony Ligi, Jr. of Metairie and by my state rep. Walt Leger, III.
It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally deface with graffiti immovable or movable property, whether publicly or privately owned, without the consent of the owner.
Sounds fair enough, though this is pretty much stating the obvious. The big deal about this bill is the maximum penalty is booted up from $500 to $10,000. So, what does this mean for our grey friend who has no qualms about doing his community "service" in broad daylight? What does this bill define graffiti as?
"Graffiti" includes but is not limited to any sign, inscription, design, drawing, diagram, eatching, symbol, lettering, name, or marking placed upon immovable or movable property in such a manner and in such a location as to deface the property and be visibile to the general public.
That being said...
"Deface" or "defacing" is the damaging of immovable or movable property by means of painting, marking, scratching, drawing, or etching with graffiti.
Painting...immoveable or moveable property. Sounds like this includes the Grey Ghost to me. Hopefully the NOPD won't continue to look the other way and will actually enforce the law. On Radtke more than anyone else, largely because he is a menace and dangerous. After the stunt he pulled on Dingler he's got to have something coming to him.
On a completely separate note, I'm curious as to why Sen. Cheryl Gray was one of five nay votes.
A Little To the Left to grayc show details 4:20 PM (0 minutes ago)
Senator Gray,
Could you please explain why you were one of five nay votes in the above matter (RE: higher penalties for graffiti)?
Are you in cahoots with the Gray Ghost?
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment