Resigning from Graffiti Advisory Board
On January 14, 2021, I attended my final meeting as the district 9 representative on the Graffiti Advisory Board of San Francisco. I was first appointed to this position in May, 2015 because I wanted to better understand the city’s goals for the Where Art Lives program, which I continue to run in 2021.
I am resigning because someone more qualified, Anna Lisa Escobedo, has agreed to take over the role and has been appointed to replace me.
Below is my resignation letter, which I read to the board, and a selection of doodles and notes I made during meetings.
I could go on at length about any of the ideas I brought up in this letter.
Todd Berman
January 14, 2021
To Supervisor Hilary Ronen,
As of January 14, 5pm, I am resigning my seat at the San Francisco Graffiti Advisory Board (GAB). I believe that Anna Lisa Escobedo has the knowledge and experience to better represent District 9 on this body.
The GAB has been effective at trouble-shooting the process of converting 311 reports about vandalism into abatement, holding corporate partners with the city accountable for abatement of vandalism on their property, and making the whole process more friendly and accessible for small business and property owners. This is in line with the Board’s mission, but falls short of its potential.
The Graffiti Advisory Board has not been in the practice of considering the benefits of graffiti. If you spend time in the Mission District you will see many tourists walking down alleys with their Routard travel guide books open. Imprint City is working on filling the Bayview district with street art murals and are promoting the district as the “Sprayview” as part of a marketing strategy to increase foot traffic in the neighborhood. The city often cites the cost of graffiti abatement – but has anyone studied how much tourism revenue that street art in the city generates?
There are other benefits that can be explored. Street art culture fosters artistic development. Some of our most successful local artists developed their skills via street art. Barry McGee, Margaret Kilgallen, and Andrew Schoultz, for example, are invited to show work in museums all over the world.
Many young people find graffiti-style art to be highly compelling. Anything that can so spark the passion of youth can be of great value to educators.
I don’t blame my fellow Board members for these short-comings. The charter for the GAB only refers to graffiti as something to be eliminated. “This Board shall be advisory to the Board of Supervisors about the problem of graffiti in neighborhoods and the downtown area of San Francisco. The Advisory Board shall also advise the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors about graffiti enforcement, cleanup, and prevention strategies.”
Part of what is going on here is that the legal definition of “graffiti” is unpermitted illegal vandalism, but the common usage of the word “graffiti” often refers to the style of art and the aesthetic. San Francisco certainly isn’t trying to prevent graffiti scarves from being sold at Neiman Marcus.
The “Broken Window Theory” is often referred to at GAB meetings as if it is a widely accepted principle, but I believe that now most social policy experts would consider it to be debunked and consider it to be false, and blame it as a contributor to harmful and racist criminal justice policies.
The purely negative language around “graffiti” reveals itself to be problematic when one considers that as an art form, it is one of the pillars of Hip Hop culture and is associated with the creativity of young people of color and Black American culture.
I hope that the Graffiti Advisory Board will take time to learn about the cultural importance of graffiti art and the impact it has had in San Francisco. I would recommend that the mission of the board be altered to include consideration of graffiti as an issue that is unique in comparison to examples of blight, such as vacant properties and illegal billboards.
I encourage the GAB to consider that many graffiti artists have productive, positive motivations, and to explore what space is available in the city for spontaneous creativity and political expression. Compare that with how much visual space in the city is reserved for corporate speech in the form of advertisements.
Experts in Hip Hop culture, art history, and social policy could be brought to talk with the board and I would suggest that the San Francisco Arts Commission be invited to have a formal role in these discussions.
Sincerely,
Todd Berman