Graffiti, we can safely say, can be controversial topic. But at what point does a neighborhood fighting back overreach and just make things worse? We ask because last weekend the Park Slope Civic Council hosted its annual Spring Civic Sweep, and that included a group going around the neighborhood painting over graffiti with heavy silver paint. They were supposed to be just cleaning up lamposts, but it appears they got more than a little over eager:
It appears that some great kids, hearts clearly in the right place, were guided by a few adults with very questionable judgement. As I was taking my morning stroll I noticed the group making their way down 5th Avenue picking up litter. When they came upon any evidence of graffiti, they stopped and quickly covered the blemish with silver paint. I first saw them address a barely visible, faded outline on the metal security door of a restaurant. Problem was, the graffiti had pretty much already been removed and the fresh shiny silver paint did not match the flat grey of the existing paint.
Hmm. Was this what the owners wanted? My question was soon answered. Not likely. As the group made their way down the block, without any pause or attempt to contact or consult an occupant of each property, they painted thick hasty strokes of metallic silver over any graffiti, on any building surface - no matter what color the brick or brownstone may have been (rarely silver). The building across from mine (rather derelict I’ll admit) received the ultra premium treatment.
Yes, graffiti can be considered a visual blight, but this is just absurd—the silver splotches just look like blank canvases to us, ready to be retagged.
We don't particularly like the tags that have gone up over the years on our own building, but holy moly if someone came by and covered them up with heavy silver paint we would go ballistic.
