On the issue of “artistic” or “self-expression” graffiti, I know many people who are very supportive of it. I personally am not, and these views hardened many years ago while living in Washington, DC when there was a kid from the suburbs whose prolific tagging and graffiti in poor, African-American neighborhoods attracted considerable media attention. I forget his name, but I will not forget that there was a certain latent classism and racism to his comments about his choice of where he painted graffiti. His attitude was almost that as a rich kid from a wealthy suburb, he was entitled to come to poor people’s neighborhoods to commit his vandalism, because you know, they don’t care and all. It’s the same with suburbanites coming down to buy drugs or patronize prostitutes; all of these actions give the impression that the city is some sort of anarchic playground for people’s vices. It is not that; it is the home of three hundred thousand people; it is not anyone’s personal playground.

On an aesthetic level, most of the graffiti in St. Louis is of considerably low quality. Yes, I know, not everyone can paint like Raphael, but seriously, the graffiti in St. Louis is terrible. Have I seen some interesting graffiti in St. Louis? Yes, but not often.

On the basest level, there is the hypocrisy factor: doing to others’ property what you would not want done to your own. My question to all taggers: when can I come over and tag your property? That’s what I thought.

Call me old and cranky (Get off my lawn!) but I say shoot them on sight and consider it city vector control.