Editor:
    I recently picked up a pretty funny book called Unusually Stupid Americans, and I noticed that a number of the stories in the book are about obviously innocent people trapped by shortsighted local laws or company policies. I’m afraid South Portland may be headed for the next edition.
    The new anti-graffiti ordinance is so poorly written that not only might it make us a laughingstock, but it might cost our city dearly in court costs and misplaced police time if a few overzealous bureaucrats or police officers enforce the ordinance as written.
    A 1971 Supreme Court decision stated the problem pretty clearly:  “This Court has long held that laws so vague that a person of common understanding cannot know what is forbidden are unconstitutional on their face.”
    Graffiti is a serious problem, and it’s clear that businesses want better deterrence than is provided by existing state and local laws, which do make graffiti illegal. But we can’t run scared and cast a broad net that catches normal law-abiding citizens, or makes them afraid of being caught for nothing.
    There are many instances of poor writing in the ordinance. One is a provision specifically presuming kids to be guilty until proven innocent if they possess a “graffiti implement” in or near a school--an inversion of our normal legal due process.
    The worst part of the new ordinance is its strange definition of “graffiti implement.” In addition to spray paint and broad-tipped markers, the ordinance states that any “brush or any other device capable of scarring or leaving a visible mark on any natural or manmade surface” is considered a “graffiti implement.”
    That includes pens and pencils, rakes (lawns are natural surfaces), anything with a metal edge that can scratch (such as car keys), hairbrushes, artist’s brushes, hammers, screwdrivers, bike tires, golf clubs, soccer cleats...you get the picture.
    And don’t think this is just about kids. The ordinance considers anyone of any age guilty of the intent to attempt graffiti if they are found carrying any of these “graffiti implements” in “any public facility, park, playground, swimming pool, recreational facility, or other public building, structure, premises or vehicle without the City’s permission.” For example, if you are caught walking through a park or into City Hall carrying a pen, without permission of the City, you are deemed guilty of the intent to commit a crime under the anti-graffiti ordinance.
    In addition, any person or business is guilty and liable to a fine if they give or sell these “graffiti implements” to any person under 18 years old without written permission of a parent. Since it’s impossible to guess exactly what a “graffiti implement” is, the safest way for parents to avoid becoming a test court case for this ordinance might be to forbid kids to buy anything from a store unless it’s soft, or has no ink or paint in it. Maybe the Maine Mall should card customers to avoid selling to anyone under 18, since most items sold there could be defined as graffiti implements under the ordinance.
It amazes me that this ordinance was passed unanimously by the City Council. I can think of a few bad reasons why the Council let it go through or felt unable to vote “no”, but I can’t think of any explanation that puts South Portland in a good light.
    Hopefully the Council will step up to the plate and repeal the ordinance immediately, before any problems come up, and then make some effort to craft an ordinance that handles the graffiti problem while also doing right by the public. There’s no reason we can’t all be on the same page on this issue.
Edward Pearlman
South Portland