Graffiti Alley — a small space next to The Michigan Theater on East Liberty Street — is one of the most colorful places in Ann Arbor, with walls covered top to bottom in paint from various graffiti artists.

VIDEO

More like this

• From the Daily: Back to the drawing board
• Anti-graffiti ordinance isn't stopping artists
• City council seeks to pass anti-graffiti legislation
• Graffiti ordinance to be more enforced

While Graffiti Alley is considered a kind of haven for graffiti tags, the spread of graffiti around the city has become a major concern for property owners, prompting the Ann Arbor City Council to unanimously pass an anti-graffiti ordinance in January 2009.

The results of the ordinance, which went into effect in May 2009, have yet to be reviewed by City Council members, though council members say there appears to be some positive feedback about the ordinance’s effect on the city.

The ordinance requires property owners to remove graffiti within seven to nine days of the time of an issued notification from the city. It also allows for a less severe punishment for property owners, who are required to pay to remove any graffiti on their buildings.

The ordinance was implemented after City Council received complaints from people who believed many property owners did not care enough to remove graffiti when it appeared on their buildings.

City Councilmember Chris Taylor (D –Ward 3), one of the sponsors of the initial proposal for the graffiti ordinance, said that while City Council hasn’t analyzed official numbers, he believes the ordinance is doing its job.

“Where I used to see graffiti, I’m not seeing it anymore,” Taylor said.

According to Taylor, City Council is waiting to review the ordinance until a report is finished in upcoming months.

Though graffiti is sprawled on sides of property in Graffiti Alley, the area remains unaffected by the ordinance simply because people have chosen not to file complaints, according to City Councilmember Sandi Smith (D—Ward 1). The ordinance is geared toward new graffiti that appears on the sides of clean buildings.

“There is a gray area in the ordinance, which is for art on the side of a building,” Smith said. “It seems to me that everybody looks at Graffiti Alley as something they don’t want whitewashed.”

Smith cited the mural on the side of Potbelly’s at the corner of South State Street and East Liberty Street as another example of art on a building. Even if someone were to complain about the mural, the city would likely not require its removal.

Smith said that she was not a big proponent of the ordinance when it was passed, though she has yet to notice any major changes to the frequency of graffiti as a result of it.

“I don’t know that we see any more or less (graffiti) than we did before,” Smith said. “In terms of what deems it a success, I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder.”

When The Michigan Daily checked the progress of the graffiti ordinance in July 2009, the system for reporting graffiti was complaint-based, meaning a resident had to file a complaint with the city in order for the city to issue notices to property owners.

According to Taylor, the same method is still used for the ordinance.

Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Diane Brown said it’s difficult to measure the frequency of graffiti on campus. Just like the city’s complaint system, not all cases of graffiti are reported to DPS.

Brown also said the University allows a certain level of artistic expression. University policy permits temporary graffiti, like chalk, on horizontal surfaces. Anything written with a permanent material, like paint, or on a vertical surface is considered destruction of property.

“We want to embrace freedom of expression but not to the point of destruction of property," Brown said.