Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02
Do you think..potentially..some of the problems are that like..too few people in hamilton EVER get out of the city and can compare to how other cities are maintained or how bylaws are enforced? Like maybe that's why some of the same councilors are voted in, people don't know there is a better, that things can be done. If anyone is happy with the status quo of Hamilton, something honestly is wrong. No way anyone should just be fine with the spraypainting of the "Ghetto Connaught" or any abandoned building sitting there rotting away, without being kept in good tact, and by that I mean, tag free, fresh/replaced yearly plywood.
|
I'm puzzled by it myself. It's against Property Standards to have graffiti on buildings, but it's either people don't issue a complaint, or the complaints fall on deaf ears at the city.
I'm not sure which, but it's my thought it's probably a combination of the two. If property owners were required (i.e. standards enforced) to keep their buildings clear of graffiti and clean it up once it's was applied I thnk a few things would happen.
1. Property owners would properly secure their buildings, both physically and with better lighting, cutting bushes, etc.
2. The owners would get fed up with the added expense it was costing their bottom line (personal or corporate) and would put pressure on the city to clamp down on the perps with the spray paint cans.
3. The city would tell the police to enforce to the fullest extent of the law, no more turning the kids over to their parents. And they would work to ensure sentences were appropriate.
4. Less graffiti would happen and less would be visible (i.e. it would be removed).
Upward spirals work the same as downward spirals.