San Francisco County Grand Jury
• 2000-2001
Litter And Graffiti Report of the2000-2001 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 3 findings
F1
Section 3.100 of the San Francisco City and County Charter states that "the Mayor shall enforce all laws relating to the City and County." To force the expenditure of over $22 million of public funds per year for graffiti removal, sidewalk cleanup, garbage and trash removal caused by illegal dumping is not an example of bold and effective leadership. To reach a state of affairs where private citizens find it necessary to sue in court to force elected and appointed officials to perform those duties which they are being paid to perform is not an example of bold and effective leadership. During its investigations, the CGJ has seen several good initiatives taken by the City in response to the problems of graffiti, litter and illegal dumping (see Attachment 2). However, if San Francisco is to resolve these problems, both the Mayor and Board of Supervisors must additionally assume a highly vocal leadership position.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The CGJ recommends that the Mayor adopt an aggressive and highly visible leadership role in the war against graffiti, litter and illegal dumping. The Mayor must insist on mandatory enforcement of existing laws. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days
F2
Enforcement of litter laws is inadequate. New police officers cannot be expected to enforce litter laws if they have not been adequately introduced to their existence. Until the establishment of the Graffiti Abatement Team, the only class of City employees who appeared to consistently enforce litter laws was the ECOs. Adding the approximately 300 Traffic Control Officers to the pool of personnel issuing citations and placing increased emphasis on police enforcement of litter laws should produce a significant improvement in the City's appearance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The CGJ recommends that the curriculum for the Police Academy be revised to add sufficient time to acquaint new police officers with the local Municipal Police Code regarding graffiti, litter and illegal dumping. Required Response San Francisco Police Department- 60 Days
F3
The monetary penalties imposed on violators (if apprehended) of the litter laws are totally inadequate to deter such crimes. The low level of such fines borders on making it economically feasible to illegally dump. The maximum penalty of $76 is an improbable deterrent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The CGJ recommends that the SFPD provide in-service training for existing officers on the contents of the Police Code regarding litter. Required Response San Francisco Police Department- 60 Days
Additional Recommendations 6
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R4The CGJ recommends that the word "may" in Police Code, Section 38 of Article 1 mentioned above be changed to "shall." Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days
-
R5The CGJ recommends that Police Officers, Traffic Control Officers and ECOs increase their enforcement activities. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days San Francisco Police Department - 60 Days Department of Parking and Traffic - 60 Days Department of Public Works - 60 Days
-
R6The CGJ recommends that monetary penalties contained in the litter laws be increased as indicated above. The CGJ supports this proposed increase, and additionally urges that the minimum penalty for illegal dumping be increased to $750 for first-time offenders and $1000 for repeat offenders. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days Department of Public Works - 60 Days
-
R7The CGJ recommends that a reward system be instituted wherein citizens reporting graffiti, litter, or illegal dumping should be awarded a substantial portion of the penalty imposed on the convicted violator reported by them. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days Board of Supervisors - 90 Days
-
R8The CGJ recommends that the field communication system used by the ECOs be upgraded to permit more efficient performance of their duties and to increase their safety. Required Response Department of Public Works - 60 Days
-
R9The CGJ recommends that that funding be provided for juvenile counseling as a part of the Graffiti Abatement Team. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days San Francisco Police Department - 60 Days ATTACHMENT 1 LETTERS IN MAY 2001 FROM DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LETTERS TO PROPERTY OWNERS, GROCERY STORE OWNERS/MANAGERS FAST FOOD OWNERS/MANAGERS NEWSPAPER DISTRIBUTORS ATTACHMENT 2 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ACTIONS TAKEN FOLLOWING CLEAN CITY SUMMIT (FEBRUARY 1, 2001) ATTACHMENT 3 PHOTOGRAPHS OF NEWSRACKS FROM ANOTHER CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITY AND SAN FRANCISCO Example of newsracks from a California municipality Example of San Francisco newsracks Example of newsracks from a California municipality Example of San Francisco newsracks