Graffiti and Tagging in San Jose (280) (Oakland, Mountain View: high school, subsidized, tax)

[Wry_Martini]

For those who might be wondering why 280 is so covered in tagging and graffiti, these days:

Article here

In a nutshell, the graffiti on the freeway overpasses and on the railroad trestles (such as the infamous RIP Tommy) are not under the authority of the city; the state and CalTrain/Union-Pacific (respectively) have to clean them up.

Ugh, I hope they're able to do something about it soon. Some of the exit signs on 280 are vandalized to the point you can't read the name of the exit, I'm sure that's confusing for folks who are in from out of town. I really hate seeing the tagging every morning on my way in to work, it just looks so awful.

[bobby_guz_man]

Yep, and it's sad. I don't think we're even allowed to "volunteer" to clean up the graffiti either

[cardinal2007]

I've seen some freeway signs where the graffiti was cleaned up, but either they managed to remove the reflective paint, or left traces of paint on it that are not visible in daylight, but mess up the reflective effect, so when you drive at night the top half looks dark while you can read the bottom half. Caltrans probably needs to replace those signs.

[bigdumbgod]

Need to make those overpasses inaccessible to the bratty youth. Electrify them. Deep fried tagger ain't gonna tag.

[cornblitz]

Its horrible -- worst its ever been in the time I have lived here. And an embarrassment when friends, family, and colleagues visit.

[sjnative]

its far more prevalent on the east side which is simply a reflection of that area's demography
i think it should be left in place as, like poverty, it will continually and unstoppably manifest itself and burden the taxpayers
im sure the city/county/whomever is glad for the graffiti, tho, as it gives them a justification for expansion of subsidized (painting) services and an inevitable tax increase to support it
unsurprisingly, the people who are doing the vandalizing are likely those living on subsidized social services
thats the way it has long been- those who receive something for nothing are those who show their gratitude by increasing the burden they impose on their benefactors
its as if some people are capable only of imposing a burden on everyone else

[mstnghu2]

Originally Posted by sjnative

its far more prevalent on the east side which is simply a reflection of that area's demography
i think it should be left in place as, like poverty, it will continually and unstoppably manifest itself and burden the taxpayers
im sure the city/county/whomever is glad for the graffiti, tho, as it gives them a justification for expansion of subsidized (painting) services and an inevitable tax increase to support it
unsurprisingly, the people who are doing the vandalizing are likely those living on subsidized social services
thats the way it has long been- those who receive something for nothing are those who show their gratitude by increasing the burden they impose on their benefactors
its as if some people are capable only of imposing a burden on everyone else

As a volunteer for graffiti abatement here in Newark, I have to disagree with pretty much every point you've made. I refuse to let my community be overcome by the weak-minded acts of others. Much of the graffiti around the Bay Area is cleaned up by volunteers who care about the communities they live in.

The problem lately in San Jose is that agencies like Caltrains, railroad companies etc. can't get their asses in gear and clean up their properties. For the most part, San Jose is reasonably graffiti-free, apart from state roadways, railroad right-of-ways, etc. that are out of the city's jurisdiction. It's mainly the freeway overpasses and railway bridges that are looking crappy along area freeways these days.

Taggers are no different than a dog who goes around peeing to mark its territory. It's a feeble attempt to claim territory. Most of us would prefer to not feel like we live in the hood everywhere we go.

[bigdumbgod]

Just couldn't pass up another opportunity to vilify Mexicans, huh?. This obsession rivals that of Doc Goldstein and Oakland crime.

Originally Posted by sjnative

its far more prevalent on the east side which is simply a reflection of that area's demography
i think it should be left in place as, like poverty, it will continually and unstoppably manifest itself and burden the taxpayers
im sure the city/county/whomever is glad for the graffiti, tho, as it gives them a justification for expansion of subsidized (painting) services and an inevitable tax increase to support it
unsurprisingly, the people who are doing the vandalizing are likely those living on subsidized social services
thats the way it has long been- those who receive smething for nothing are those who show their gratitude by increasing the burden they impose on their benefactors
its as if some people are capable only of imposing a burden on everyone else

[zitsky]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Just couldn't pass up another opportunity to vilify Mexicans, huh?. This obsession rivals that of Doc Goldstein and Oakland crime.

I tend to think that a lot of taggers are high school kids living in places like Mountain View, Palo Alto and Los Altos, in other words the rich kids. Sure, there is gang related tagging going on but that's not all of it, and not all gangs are Mexican.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by zitsky

I tend to think that a lot of taggers are high school kids living in places like Mountain View, Palo Alto and Los Altos, in other words the rich kids. Sure, there is gang related tagging going on but that's not all of it, and not all gangs are Mexican.

Gang tagging is typically black paint and block letters. The artistic stuff is dumb kids.